As ever it is hard to keep up. Friday provided a news cycle for the ages, as court filings related to the criminal convictions of his former campaign manager Paul Manafort and fixer Michael Cohen were released. In the latter case, the President – aka Individual One – is found to have directed Cohen’s crimes when paying off Stormy Daniels and Karen MacDougall.

We learnt in some detail how Cohen has co-operated extensively with Mueller’s investigation into collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. and that White House activities after taking office are under investigation. The Special Prosecutor confirmed the infamous Trump Tower meeting coincided with a sustained Kremlin effort to influence the election.

Likewise, the heavily redacted Manafort evidence appears to lay out collusion with suspected Russian intelligence officer Konstantin Kilimnik. Earlier last week, further collusion evidence emerged via the co-operation agreement of Michael Flynn. Trump’s initial National Security Advisor – who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and not registering as an agent of the Turkish government – co-operated substantially.

*This piece was first published last Friday, so I’ve updated the odds about an on-time Brexit, which have lengthened further since.

The chance of the UK leaving the EU on time, if at all, is falling fast if Betfair markets are a guide. Following a truly remarkable few days in parliament, it is now rated only 37% likely that Brexit be delivered on time – March 29, 2019 – at odds of 2.72. Brexit not happening before 2022 also shortened to 3.6 – equivalent to 28% likely.

Grieve amendment places Brexit in real doubt

Having been found in contempt of parliament for the first time ever, the government was forced release their legal advice on Theresa May’s Brexit deal. Then, an amendment from Tory backbencher Dominic Grieve gave parliament the ability to broadly dictate the process if the withdrawal bill is defeated. At the time of editing this piece, news has just broken that the vote has been postponed in expectation of a massive defeat.

What next? In normal times, such a humiliating defeat would destroy a government and certainly a PM. However these are not normal times and it isn’t clear that rebel backbenchers are prepared to trigger a no confidence vote – currently rated a [2.4] chance to happen in 2018.

Labour will try to force an election and the odds about one in 2019 has come into 2.5. As argued a fortnight ago, this is a poor bet given the Tory divisions and fears of Jeremy Corbyn. Nor would it necessarily resolve the impasse.

No deal less likely but still possible

Much commentary has become dismissive of ‘No Deal’ now that parliament has gained control of the process. Today’s Telegraph report that the EU will allow May to extend the Article 50 deadline reinforces that and explains market moves against a timely Brexit.

A delay certainly looks likelier but could still be problematic and a deal – in the short or long-term – far from certain. As it stands, the UK will leave the EU by default next March. To change that will require a Conservative PM to act or parliament to force her hand. May has repeatedly promised there would be no extension and any such move will be toxic for her.

Never before have we seen a bigger driver of political betting than Donald Trump’s blockbuster drama. Seasons one and two saw an outsider become the candidate and defy conventional wisdom to become president. Season three involved a chaotic presidency, culminating in humiliating mid-term defeat.

Entering season four, Trump is drowning in legal jeopardy. His ratings are historically awful and re-election will require an extraordinary turnaround. Many doubt series five will ever be made as the FBI encircle the White House, his family and finances. Is this the beginning of the end?

2019 will be a year like no other. The Russia scandal is bigger than Watergate and escalating fast. Having written about it since before Trump was elected, none of the revelations are surprising.

Trump-Russia investigation intensifying

Team Trump’s Kremlin connections were plain to see throughout and the denials widely debunked. Biographers demonstrated long before he entered politics how Trump’s finances would never withstand the scrutiny of office.

That will intensify once the Democrats assume control of the House of Representatives in January. They will investigate everything, using committees and subpoena power to release ever more into the public domain. There is already enough from indictments and plea deals to conclude that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s final report will be damning.

Punters face four questions. Do they share my analysis, or Trump’s claims of a witch-hunt? Will Mueller be sacked or silenced? Will the result be impeachment or resignation? Or can he survive to win a second term in 2020?

On Friday morning on the Exchange, the betting for the Next General Election – whenever that may come to pass – was perfectly tied, with both Conservatives and Labour available to back at [2.06] to win most seats. An accurate reflection of the stalemate seen in polls, reinforced at local elections, since the 2017 election. Is this duopoly the new normal or the calm before the storm? What, in particular, will be the effect of Brexit?

Brexit endgame will test fragile party unity

Ever since the referendum, both party leaderships have been walking a tightrope, trying to unite deeply opposing factions among their MPs, members, voters and constituents. As Brexit reaches its endgame, those ties will be tested like never before. The fallout could have profound implications for the entire party system, particularly for the Tories.

Tory divisions over Europe are deep, longstanding and played out in public on a daily basis. It is very hard to see any course of events that eases tensions, re-unites the party and keeps their voter base happy.

Polls suggest a a ‘No Deal’ Brexit would best please the 52% that voted Leave – who largely voted Tory in 2017 – but that would surely change if economic disaster awaits. Regardless of any chaos at the ports or food and medicine shortages, merely talk of a deep fall in house prices will cut deep into the national psyche. Especially among older homeowners, who overwhelmingly vote Conservative.

Another referendum would be toxic for any Tory leader and, if parliament forces it, a split becomes realistic. Even avoiding both awful scenarios by backing Theresa May’s deal would merely kick the can down the road. Conservatives will continue to obsess and fight over the future EU relationship during the transition period.

If nothing else, the last two torturous years should have been an educational experience with regards how politics within the EU and between member states works. One lesson for citizens of all countries should be to take anything their politicians or media say with a huge pinch of salt, for they are evidently more concerned with domestic audiences than reality.

In the final days leading up to this weekend’s critical EU summit – where the UK’s Withdrawal Agreement is expected to be signed – fantasy and opportunism has been rife. Several Conservative MPs – doubtless with an eye on the leadership – sought to change the agreement, despite absolutely everyone with any knowledge of the EU process dismissing the idea as impossible.

Then – doubtless with an eye on their domestic voters, who are likelier than usual to be paying attention to Brexit – the French and Spanish governments raised their own complaints, with the latter even threatening to ‘veto Brexit’, despite no such single country veto existing.

After my conversation with Theresa May, our positions remain far away. My Government will always defend the interests of Spain. If there are no changes, we will veto Brexit.

Were Gibraltar to become an intractable problem, it is possible that all the EU27 could unite as they did over the Irish border, but that would happen later over the secondary, wider trade deal. For now, any problems will be managed with vague, ultimately meaningless, wording in the political declaration. Theresa May will return home with an agreement.

May’s deal looks doomed to fail in parliament

The PM’s problem, of course, is that hardly anyone at home is happy with it. Even Brexiteers Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson and John Redwood admit this deal is worse than remaining in the EU. Assuming a vote is forthcoming this year, Labour and the DUP will vote it down, placing May’s position into further peril.

Crunch time, it seems, is finally here. After over two years of speculation – not to mention several hours during the Cabinet meeting – Theresa May released her proposed withdrawal agreement to the media last night. As the details are digested over the coming hours, the world awaits to see what happens next – regarding both Brexit or May’s future.

In keeping with an almost universal narrative, the signals from Betfair markets are neither clear or indicative of confidence in any particular direction. At odds of 1.79, a timely Brexit on 29/03/2019 is rated 56% likely – slightly down. Another In/Out Referendum before 2020 is trading at 3.1 (32%) – slightly up.

Major gamble underway on May leaving this year

In another fundamentally related market, odds about a 2019 Election hit new lows before settling around 2.6 (38%). However the main action concerned Theresa May’s Exit Date. The odds about her going this year fell sharply to the current 2.9 (34%) (correct as of 07:30 on Thursday) in anticipation of rebel MPs forcing a confidence vote.

I’ve been waiting for such a collapse since recommending Oct-Dec at 6.6 back in July, in expectation of this moment. The point when it becomes abundantly clear that May’s version of Brexit would be nowhere near hard enough for her party – ‘Brexit in name only’. Needless to say, Leave.EU and Boris Johnson didn’t take long to respond.

WATCH | @BorisJohnson responds to the news that a BRINO fudge has been agreed, reeling off the 101 issues that are wrong with May's deal.

Indeed criticism from the Right was both widespread and immediate, with some like arch-Brexiteer Iain Dale saying he would rather Remain, as this deal was worse. It was widely reported that more letters from the ‘hard Brexit’ ERG would be sent to 1922 Committee chair Graham Brady – 48 would trigger a confidence vote. Of course we’ve heard all of this before but I do think we are in new territory.

The numbers are surely there if necessary, as previous threats were basically leverage aimed at influencing policy. Now May has failed to deliver and – if losing a parliamentary vote, will be seen to have failed – the lame duck PM may have served her purpose.

2020 will see a Democrat primary like never before. Anybody with even vague White House ambitions will be excited following the best Democrat mid-terms results since Watergate. With Trump engulfed in one scandal after another, possibly facing impeachment, there has never been a better time to be the Democrat Nominee.

The politics may be in total contrast to what we saw in the explosive 2016 Republican primary but the dynamics similar. Then, 18 candidates produced an anarchic process that required the TV companies to show an ‘undercard’ debate preceding the main event. The resulting circus produced unpredictability, constant drama and defeat for mainstream politicians.

Harris was actually the first bet I advised on this market at 15.0 last October but I’ve since laid the stake back. Assuming she runs, her chance is obvious. The California primary is much earlier than usual in the next cycle and whoever wins it will be front-runner.

Harris will continue to get much exposure scrutinising Trump via her role on the Senate Judiciary Committee. There is a strong inclination among Democrats to pick a woman. She’s in pole position but that is reflected in short odds and there will be plenty of other women involved. For example Enten rates Elizabeth Warren 18.5 second and Amy Klobuchar 40.0 fourth. At the same odds, Tulsi Gabbard 32.0 and Kirsten Gillibrand 40.0 are attracting support.

High-ranking Democrats lack an obvious star

Consider the dynamics of a crowded field. The effect of 18 candidates on the Republicans produced Trump. A star, rather than a predictable, boring politician. Somebody whose noise and ability to game the media drowned out all others and serious policy debate.

Everyone may be wiser to the latter effect now but the first remains fundamental. To get a hearing, candidates will need to fast develop a public profile and name recognition, plus resources to get their message across. It isn’t obvious that any of those aforementioned names will be up to that task, or able to differentiate themselves from the pack.

The world awoke yesterday to the US mid-term election results with one question in mind – will Donald Trump be re-elected? As I have argued consistently since he took office, the answer is no. Nothing about these results, and everything about the immediate aftermath, makes me more certain.

2020 betting unmoved by mid-term signals

Many a hot take mused that Trump was in reasonable shape. Our 2020 Presidential Election odds moved slightly in his favour, with 2.68 now available about him winning a second term. An understandable reaction if simply comparing the situation to recent cycles. Obama, Clinton and Reagan all won a second term despite losing the House of Representatives in their first mid-term.

The problem with such comparisons is they are based on normality. On less divided times, when more voters swung between elections. Nothing since Trump entered politics in 2015 has been normal. These elections weren’t normal and the fast unfolding events across the Atlantic are unprecedented.

Even before all the votes have been counted, Trump ramped up his war with the media at this astonishing press conference, and sacked Attorney General Jeff Sessions – who, significantly, was not even allowed to stay until Friday as he wanted. According to this presidential historian, we are looking at a scandal ten times bigger than Watergate.

"If this is going the way it looks, this is 10 times worse than Nixon"

Before dealing with the future, let’s look at these results. First, any idea that retaining the Senate equated to a draw for Republicans is fantasy. That wasn’t a national race, with only a third of seats in play, on a very favourable map. In contrast all 435 House seats were up and the Democrats overcame systemic bias, partly due to gerrymandering, to win a majority.

They won the popular vote by around 7.5%, with the swing most marked in precisely the sort of suburban district that ultimately determine general elections. They also swept several governorships (including deep, red Kansas) and state legislatures. The turnout was historic, with the rise most stark among millenials, women and minorities. In what was effectively a referendum on Trump, a clear majority ‘disapproved’ and just shy of half ‘strongly disapproved’.

There has never been a mid-term US election like it, whether measured by the nature of the campaign, media coverage, betting or the significance moving forward. Whether it was the Kavanaugh confirmation, Trump’s ever more extreme immigration rhetoric or the tragedies caused by domestic terrorism, the world has been watching America. On Tuesday, we get to see whether it shifted any votes.

Markets stable amid entrenched partisan divide

Polls or betting market signals suggest not very many. The Democrats lead by an average 7.2% on the generic ballot – slightly down but broadly consistent with the longer-term. A Democrat Majority in the House of Representatives has shortened to 1.5 but that merely reflects the lack of turnaround for a target for which they’ve long been favourites. Likewise the Republicans have shortened slightly to 1.28 to retain their Senate Majority because there is little indication of the required Democrat turnaround in competitive states.

Results will ultimately be determined by turnout – which is certain to be way up on the last mid-terms in 2014. I’ve long argued that this favours the Democrats because the Trump-effect will mobilise groups whose turnout at the 2016 general election underperformed, such as minorities and millennials. Women, amongst whom Democrats lead by around 18%, have been super-motivated in one special election after another since Trump’s election.

Post-Clinton, Democrats have a better narrative than 2016

In many respects this is a re-run of 2016, when I wrongly expected such anti-Trump trends to materialise. A fundamental and in my view, decisive, difference this time is that the Democrats aren’t hampered by an unpopular, damaged candidate under FBI investigation.

Instead they get their preferred 2016 narrative that never materialised – a referendum on Trump. A president about whom more than half of voters disapprove, with historically high ‘strong disapprovals’. If he can defy such poor numbers and a trend that has seen every incumbent president since the 1970s besides George W Bush (in the aftermath of 9/11) lose their first mid-terms, we may as well discard the old formbook.

I’ve been backing the Democrats to win the House all year – my position is 100 units at 1.81 to win the House – and see no reason to change course. The odds still imply a much lower chance than the ratings of leading US experts and prediction models. Fivethirtyeight give the Democrats an 86% chance, compared to 67% on Betfair.

Next Tuesday, two years since his election shocked betting markets, Donald Trump will face the first meaningful electoral test of his presidency. Although his name is not on the ballot for local races across the country, the president’s omnipresence has come to define all US political matters. Whatever the result, it will be presented as a verdict on Trump.

Control of both Houses of Congress are on the line. All 435 districts for the House of Representatives are up for election, meaning Democrats need to gain 23 seats to win control and are currently rated favourites to do so.

With only 35 of 100 seats up for re-election, however, the battle for the Senate is very different. Republicans currently lead 51-47 – discounting two Dem-leaning Independents – and are rated likelier to gain rather than lose seats. Among their defences, only Nevada was carried by Hillary Clinton in 2016, whereas Democrats must defend ten states won by Trump.

Regarding the latter, it is essential to note the rules in Betfair’s Senate market. Here, a majority is defined as 51 seats, so the Democrats must gain four even though 49 would give them effective control, given the help of those two Independent Senators.

The implications of these elections, widely billed on the Left as the most important mid-terms ever, are profound. If Democrats do land the odds and take the House, they will use the power of subpoena to try to expose multiple layers of GOP (Republican Party) corruption. They could potentially empower numerous investigations against Trump and release information currently suppressed by GOP-led committees. Moreover, a good majority will give them the numbers to introduce impeachment charges.

The fundamental difference in dynamics between the House and Senate battles cannot be overstated. First, let’s deal with the House. I’ve consistently recommended backing the Democrats for this target since last December and have tripled down at an average of 1.81 for a total of 100 units.

I've just backed the Democrats to win a majority in the House of Reps next year at 1.88 expecting the odds to shorten. https://t.co/bRNKca2fi4

The 2016 effect continues to loom large over all political matters, including betting. Before Brexit and Trump, political betting was arguably the most reliable indicator of election results. In the first 15 years of Betfair, the favourite from 100 days out won every major UK or US election. Then suddenly, politics became extremely unpredictable.

Bettors increasingly reject US prediction models

Those markets were driven by a number of things but primarily polls and forecasting models. The ratings on Fivethirtyeight were particularly influential. Whenever their assessment moved during the last US election, so did the market. Notably, although they shared the consensus view that Clinton would win, their percentage rating was generally lower than Betfair.

Today, ahead of the first major US election since Trump took office, favourite backers seem more nervous than ever and the comprehensive state-by-state analysis of that prediction model or highly regarded alternatives such as Cook Political Report or Sabato’s Crystal Ball have made little or no impact on markets.

Democrats look overpriced for House majority

Consider the battle for the House of Representatives. Fivethirtyeight have been very strong about a Democrat majority since unveiling their model and have become more so over time, currently rating it 86% likely. By contrast, Betfair odds of 1.6 imply a mere 62% chance and have at no stage bettered 71%.

Last night, even an eye-popping 17% national advantage on the generic ballot in the latest LA Times survey failed to move the odds. Granted, that has every appearance of an outlier when considered alongside the 6% difference recorded by Yougov, but the LA Times poll involved a much bigger sample, just shy of 4,000.

A vivid example of the mountain Democrats need to climb in order to gain control of the Senate is that Arizona is rated either their best or second best chance of a gain. A solid red state that has elected only one Democrat senator since the 1960s, although the fact they preferred Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton by only 4% in 2016 offers hope in the current environment.

Trump approval here has fallen eight points to 47% which, along with the demographic changes that make Arizona a legitimate long-term blue target, may explain why previous Senator Jeff Flake was so keen to position himself as a critic of the president. Rather than face the fury of the GOP base, Flake then stood aside, resulting in an open contest between Martha McSally and Kyrsten Sinema, which all indicators point towards a near dead-heat.

Synema has mostly led polls for the Democrats but that may have been an effect of a divisive Republican primary, and there are still lots of undecideds, who probably lean Republican. The outcome will largely hinge on turnout and particularly whether the Democrats can inspire suburban switchers and extra Hispanic voters to the polls.

The Sunshine State is famously pivotal when it comes to choosing a president and it could plausibly be the key to control of the Senate. Predictably given its recent electoral history, this is a toss-up which the Democrats must hold to have any chance of denying Republicans a majority.

Incumbent Bill Nelson is bidding for a fourth term against an opponent many believe will be tougher than he’s faced before. Rick Scott is the Republican Governor of Florida and was consistently recorded ahead in polls until recently.

Perhaps Scott’s higher everyday profile in the state offered an early advantage because since the campaigns began in earnest, Nelson has established a small, yet solid lead. Democrats will be particularly encouraged by a 7% lead with Quinnipac, which included only 1% of undecideds. Simultaneously, the Democrat candidate is ahead in the race to succeed Scott as governor.

Florida voted for Trump by a 1.3% margin but his approval has since fallen 7% to an underwater 49%. That is nevertheless higher than average and Florida’s demographics – large numbers of older, whiter, retirees and a large Cuban American constituency that lean to the Right – still make it very winnable for Republicans as Scott proved.

So much for the old idea that betting markets were fundamentally sensitive to media reports. Despite several days of febrile speculation and almost universal agreement that the crunch time for Theresa May’s Brexit plans and therefore leadership has arrived, Betfair markets related to her exit date remain virtually unmoved.

Markets backing May to survive ahead of hell week

Odds of 7.6 to leave post during Oct-Dec 2018 and 8.0 for Jan-Mar 2019 imply she is 74% likely to see through the entire Brexit process, assuming it ends on time. Presumably, bettors have grown weary of reacting to relentless internal machinations within the Conservative Party that never go anywhere.

Max Liu explained yesterday how this could be her ‘hell week‘, as her government teeters on the brink of collapse, amid divisions over Brexit that seem to be fundamentally unresolvable. The latest is that weekend negotiations did not resolve the Irish border question, and the Cabinet’s Brexiter-faction will meet tonight over pizza to discuss their next moves.

Deal remains deadlocked on Ireland and Customs Union

There was talk yesterday of an agreement at ‘negotiator level’ but even if so, there is no suggestion that political hurdles can be cleared. Any such deal will involve a ‘backstop’ to avoid a hard border in Ireland that, by definition, cannot be time-limited.

If it were, in the absence of a technological solution, uncertainty would persist and the issue would merely be kicked down the road to the new end-date. It won’t satisfy the DUP or Labour, let alone the hardline Brexiters in May’s own party. Likewise, any transitional deal involving Customs Union membership is only likely to appease Brexiters if it has a specific, legally enshrined, end-date.

With Brett Kavanaugh confirmed to the Supreme Court, the most divisive incident of this most divisive presidency may have been settled, but the culture wars rumble on. The ramifications – whether they be short or long-term, electoral, political, legal or cultural – could be profound.

Supreme Court fight has energised Republicans

The campaign to stop Kavanaugh amid a slew of allegations, his own testimony and that of accuser Christine Blasey Ford, has for once overshadowed Trump in the publicity stakes. The issue has energised millions in the run-up to what have been widely billed as the most important mid-terms ever and the effect remains far from clear.

I’ve been confidently tipping the Democrats to win the House of Representatives all year, at an average around 1.81, particularly for two reasons. The Left or more accurately anti-Trump voters, have never been this energised. Whether special elections, primary turnout or social media activism, everything points to a huge jump in turnout on their side.

Differential turnout is of profound importance in all elections, particularly mid-term when generally around 40% overall. It has been a historic weakness for Democrats and parties of the Left in general. With greater engagement and registration, they have the potential to improve vastly on 2014 – the last time these races were run – and to blindside polling models.

Then there are the trends since Trump’s election. A core reason for Clinton’s defeat in 2016 was performing worse than expected amongst white suburban women. Since Trump’s election, the swing that failed to previously materialise has done so across a swathe of smaller races, and shown up in polls. If sustained, they will flip numerous suburban districts and take the House.

Recent events, however, may throw a spanner in the works. The latest NBC/Marist poll shows the Democrat lead in the generic ballot halved over a month. Among suburban women, their lead fell from 35% to 14% in the final three weeks of September. ‘NeverTrump Conservatives’, who have rarely found common cause with the GOP since 2015, came home.

Nobody in politics has ever known anything quite like Donald Trump and that equally applies to betting. His entry in 2015 sparked record-breaking interest in the US election and his wild ride in office is generating new markets that would previously have been unthinkable.

I must declare a long-running interest. I’ve been completely absorbed by US politics since spending 2016 travelling the country. I predicted his relationship and position towards Russia would contribute to his defeat in September 2015, and duly lost big.

I watched the ‘fake news’ scam that forms a central part of the Mueller investigation in real-time, and have never doubted the conclusions of the Western intelligence community regarding Russian interference. From the outset of that investigation, I’ve been adamant that collusion and criminality would be exposed by an unstoppable legal process.

The road to re-election

There are numerous paths that could prevent the President from re-election in 2020, or ending his term early. They include impeachment, resignation and the 25th amendment, amongst other scenarios.

As provocative as impeachment sounds, the process is straight forward. Only one article needs to be passed in the House of Representatives. Then, two-thirds of the Senate would have to support it.

However, at the moment, there is no evidence whatsoever that a Republican congress would be prepared to impeach their own president, although the mood could plausibly change if they lose badly in November’s mid-term elections. They are the next key stage of the process.

As the fallout from Brett Kavanaugh’s elevation to the Supreme Court dominates the headlines and narrative, the outcome of November’s mid-term elections remains unpredictable. Few are confidently predicting how the politics of this will play out, and those doubts are feeding into the markets.

Democrats slip back for House majority

From a low of 1.4, Democrats have drifted to 1.6 to achieve their top target – winning a majority in the House of Representatives. Regular readers will know I’ve tipped them several times for that, at an average around 1.81, in expectation of a ‘Blue Wave’. However, I have deliberately swerved betting on the Senate, until now.

The first, essential task when weighing these markets is to understand the rules and maths. In our Senate market, the definition of a ‘majority’ is having 51 of the 100 seats – as opposed to having more than the other party. The current tallies are Republicans 51, Democrats 47. There are two independent Senators, Bernie Sanders and Angus King.

Therefore, the Republicans simply need to come out level on the night to retain their majority. Given an extremely favourable map, they are strong favourites at 1.49 to do so, compared to dismissive odds of 10.0 about a Democrat majority.

In my view the third option ‘No Majority’ is the value bet at [4.2], primarily because it covers numerous permutations and will likely offer good trading potential in the closing stages, or on the night, regardless of either party gaining momentum. Here’s why.

Brexit remains – no pun intended – the most unpredictable political process in living memory. Since I last wrote about it, all the main points have come to fruition. Chequers was exposed as a charade. Theresa May has alienated even more Tories by pursuing a widely unpopular deal. A ‘Peoples Vote’ has gained some momentum, fuelled by pressure from Labour’s grassroots. Yet we are still barely any wiser. Anybody wanting clarity must wait.

Markets shift against Brexit following Starmer speech

So far as the markets are concerned, the takeaway from the Labour conference is that Brexit has become slightly less likely. Leaving on March 29th 2019, as Theresa May is adamant will be the case, drifted to 1.66, equivalent to a 66% chance. Another EU Referendum before 2020 shortened to 3.15.

Both moves were driven by Keir Starmer’s speech, declaring that ‘nobody has ruled out Remain’. Likewise it became apparent that Labour will vote against any deal, despite Jeremy Corbyn’s offer to work with the Tories towards a ‘sensible’ deal. Decoded, that means a deal that solves the Irish border impasse and reflects Labour priorities – frictionless trade, workers rights, environmental and consumer standards. A deal nobody expects any Tory leader to strike.

Labour right to prefer an election to referendum

Should bettors, however, be paying so much attention to the Labour position? It isn’t clear that they will be able to stop Brexit or that they would want to, if it involved taking a huge political risk. If as expected, May does not find agreement with the EU, there will be no deal to vote down in parliament and not enough time to legislate for a referendum before March 29th.

One thing nobody could accuse Donald Trump of is failing to spark interest in political betting. From the moment he took office, bettors have been trading the date of his exit date and whether he would survive a full term, not to mention winning a second term. In light of the latest developments in the Mueller investigation, Betfair now have a market on impeachment.

Odds of 2.46 are currently available about Trump being impeached during his first term, equivalent to a 41% chance. Note the rules. For this bet to win, just one article of impeachment must pass by a majority vote in the House of Representatives. The later, decisive vote in the Senate, requiring a two-thirds majority, is irrelevant.

Impeachment vote likely if Democrats win the House

Given that the Democrats are firm favourites to win the House at [1.46] (68%), that definition of impeachment is extremely plausible. Even likely. The temptation and pressure to impeach will outweigh any feared electoral risk. Do bear this in mind if reading my previous piece entitled “Corruption will finish Trump but don’t bet on impeachment”. As I’ll explain, all predictions stand!

Eight weeks tomorrow, US voters head to the polls for arguably the most important mid-term elections in their history. At stake is control of the House of Representatives, Senate and potentially by extension, the survival of the Trump Presidency. If Democrats win the first, they will likely start impeachment proceedings although they’ll need to win the backing of two thirds of Senators to succeed.

Betfair markets rate the Democrats 64% likely to regain the House and the Republicans 71% to retain the Senate at respective odds of 1.57 and 1.41. In addition to those nationwide races, we’re offering markets on all the individual contests.

In terms of public interest, electoral significance and simply entertainment value, the Texas Senate race has no competition. US media have been covering it for months and some even talk about the two combatants going head to head in 2020 for the White House.

In the red corner, we have Ted Cruz – the only Republican to give Trump a tough race in 2016. In blue, Beto O’Rourke – increasingly hyped as the great Democrat hope. Polls point to a surprisingly close contest, given that Cruz won this seat by 16% on the same 2012 day that Barack Obama won a second term as President.

O’Rourke odds halved in early gamble

When the market opened, Cruz was matched at just 1.15. Ever since, as news of the O’Rourke campaign has travelled and speculation of a Blue Wave has grown, the incumbent is out to 1.4.

It must be noted that Democrats have been overhyping their chances in Texas for years. It remains merely a long-term target, based on a growing Hispanic population and increasingly liberal cities. To date, the breakthrough hasn’t come close to materialising, particularly due to the perennial liberal weakness – low registration and turnout.

In any normal era, with less famous candidates, the Republican would be a shoo-in. However this year and this pair may be different. If would-be Democrats can’t be motivated to register and vote this time, they never will.

Europe’s next big election takes place in Sweden on Sunday, and the dominant themes will be familiar to anyone following politics in recent years. Just as we saw in France, Netherlands, Germany and Italy, the narrative involves declining establishment parties and a rising far-Right with realistic ambitions of becoming the largest party.

The Sweden Democrats – an overtly racist party, boasting former neo-nazis as candidates, have rocked the politics of this famously consensual Scandinavian nation. From finishing a distant third at the previous election, they have spent 2018 exchanging opinion poll leads with the governing Social Democrats. The latter has since restored a lead around 5% and are rated 59% likely to win Most Seats at odds of 1.7, compared to 2.4 about the insurgents.

That straightforward parliamentary calculation, however, is where any sort of predictability ends. Indeed if our market signals are correct, neither party will provide the Next Prime Minister or be part of the Next Government. The only thing about which analysts are united is that coalition negotiations will be torturous. See below for a list of the parties in contention to win seats, along with their latest average poll rating.

Similarities with the Netherlands are obvious. Prior to their 2017 election, the mid-term narrative and polls had been dominated by Geert Wilders and the PVV. The response from the main parties was to take a tougher line on immigration whilst ruling out any deal with the far-Right.

At the election, Wilders was sidelined, ridiculed by opponents as the ‘Dutch Trump’ and the PVV slipped back to a distant second. Talk of ‘Nexit’ is now dead in the water.

As I wrote when reviewing 2017, that defeat represented part of a liberal backlash to the world-changing events of 2016, such as Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. Fears of populism have resurfaced in 2018, though, after Italians preferred the protest party 5SM and anti-immigration, anti-EU Lega Nord.

*Since writing this piece yesterday for Betfair, Avenatti’s odds have fallen from [100.0] to [40.0]. Such moves are typical so early in the race, when it doesn’t take much money to shift the market. I still think he’s a good value pick at [40.0] but equally doubt it will shorten up much more from here in the short-term. Keep an eye on the market in coming months – he could easily drift back out.

***

Three years of unprecedented volatility in politics have taught us two betting lessons. First, there has never been a better time in the history of this particular medium to take big odds about upsets. Second, Donald Trump and Emmanuel Macron showed you don’t need to be a politician to win elections and that outsider candidates may even be at an advantage nowadays.

Indeed in the aftermath of Trump’s victory, all sorts of unimaginable presidents were backed to win the 2020 Election. Oprah Winfrey was backed down to 9.0 merely on the back of a Golden Globes speech. Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg was popular at 21.0 before the Cambridge Analytica scandal soiled his brand. Most bizarrely, Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson was matched down to 15.5.

None of them ever made any appeal but here’s another with much more realistic credentials and tremendous potential, at much bigger odds. When tweeting this seven weeks ago, it was merely a speculative punt at an average of 267.0 on somebody who probably wouldn’t run but whose odds would likely shorten.

In light of subsequent events and behaviour. Avenatti now rates a confident, top value trade at anything down to half his current [100.0] odds. He’s running.

Below is an updated summary of where I stand on over 20 key issues. This is not an exhaustive list; more positions and details will follow. I am pleased to report that I still have not had to take a poll or hire a political consultant to tell me what to say or what to believe. pic.twitter.com/51F9zF88OG

The media has been hanging on Avenatti’s every word ever since entering the public arena on behalf of his most famous client, Stormy Daniels. Confident, articulate and telegenic, he has become almost omnipresent on cable news.

Its all kicking off again in what has become the most bizarre political market in history. Just when it seemed that bettors were giving up on Donald Trump leaving office prematurely, the US legal system deals the President a double-whammy.

Last night, Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort was convicted on eight counts of financial crime in the first of two trials that could see him spend the rest of life in prison. That news was widely expected, and could actually have been worse, but few predicted the second bombshell.

Cohen flip has massive implications

Michael Cohen – ex lawyer and fixer to the President – pleaded guilty to eight counts of tax fraud, bank fraud and, critically, campaign finance violations regarding hush money paid to Stormy Daniels and another Trump accuser, Karen McDougal. A man who once claimed he’d take a bullet for Trump now directly implicates him, saying his crimes were ‘on behalf of a candidate with the purpose of influencing the election’.

Most seriously, this could be merely the first Cohen revelations. He has been at the heart of Trump operations for years and is a key player in the Russia investigation. Just as Manafort’s deputy Rick Gates flipped to become a star witness rather than face a life in prison and financial ruin, so too Cohen may be forced to testify.

Ian Paisley of the DUP could become the first MP to lose his seat under the Recall Act, after being suspended from the House of Commons for failing to declare family holidays paid for by the Sri Lankan government.

Under this relatively new law, if 10% of eligible voters in the constituency sign a petition, he will lose the seat and a new by-election will be triggered.

The money in Betfair’s market on the petition has been one-sided, with another by-election now rated a [1.16] chance, in from [1.25]. Given the polarised nature of Northern Irish politics, that looks a pretty safe bet but his party will eventually likely retain the seat is far from clear. Paisley will be free to stand again and has a huge majority above 20,000.

Grassroots activists are increasingly energised

Nevertheless, Paisley’s troubles are a timely reminder to MPs and the entire political class of just how insecure they have suddenly become. Two veteran Labour MPs – Frank Field and Kate Hoey – recently lost confidence motions from their local parties. Many believe they will be the first of many deselections as the party’s civil war threatens to escalate.

The Tories are no more secure. Deep ideological divisions over Brexit and the emerging culture wars arguably make them the party most vulnerable to collapse over the long-term. Remainer MPs such as Anna Soubry, Philip Lee and Dominic Grieve are all under constant fire from the grassroots, which will likely escalate as the watered-down Brexit deal (or not) emerges.

Notably the latter was unequivocal in his condemnation of <strong>Boris Johnson</strong> over his Burqa comments, claiming he would quit the party if the former Foreign Secretary became leader. Another relatively moderate MP, Heidi Allen, has said the same of Jacob Rees Mogg.

uch words ware music to the ears of those clamouring for a new ‘centrist’ party – thus far, the preserve of Labour MPs dismayed at the party’s left-turn. A decade of re-alignment has transformed both main parties, leaving an ever rising number of voters claiming to be ‘politically homeless’. Could an alliance of their two more centrist wings provide them shelter?

The biggest political betting event of 2018 will be November’s mid-term US Congressional Elections. Three months out, Betfair markets rate control of the House of Representatives a virtually even contest, with the Democrats slight favourites at 1.91. Republicans remain hot favourites to win the Senate at 1.37.

Ohio 12 is an excellent bellweather for the mid-terms

More imminently, Tuesday sees the final special election of this cycle and a race in Ohio which some experts are defining as the ultimate bellweather for what will happen in November. Donald Trump won Ohio’s 12th Congressional District by a 53/42 margin at the 2016 election and a defeat for his party could signal grave implications for his presidency. Again, Betfair markets are currently calling it a roughly even split.

Strangely, there has been a dearth of polling. The latest from Monmouth, showing Republican Troy Balderson just 1% ahead of Danny O’Connor, has caused a big stir. Six weeks previously, Balderson had led by 11%, which would be entirely normal for a district hasn’t voted Democrat since the 1980s. In the absence of more numbers, bettors must decide whether that poll was an outlier or if the Democrat campaign is really cutting through.

Victory for O’Connor would indeed be significant. Ohio is arguably the most important swing state and the Rust Belt the region that effectively determines the presidency. Even at his lowest point of his candidacy, Trump was a popular bet to win a state where the demographics worked in his favour and his MAGA message played well.

That said, this historically Republican district is not ideal Trump territory. Ohio 12 – a mixture of rural and suburbia – is the most educated district in the state. A very different brand of moderate, inclusive conservatism, exemplified by popular governor and long-term Trump critic John Kasich, has been the key to winning those suburban voters.

Back in April, I explained the unique opportunities to hedge between various different, yet related, markets regarding Donald Trump’s future. While those odds have since shifted a little towards the president’s favour, the angle still offers trading mileage and the most recent signals point towards more drama ahead.

Obviously, winning in 2020 depends on surviving and being the GOP candidate. By the time the primaries begin in January 2020, these survival targets will be either settled or all but settled.

If taking both sides of the position, the plan at that stage would be to reinvest the survival profits into either the nomination or presidency market. For clarification of this strategy, either check out the notes at the end of that earlier piece, or feel free to get in touch via Twitter. My call is that by early 2020, we will have the option to cash out for profit.

US opinion remains divided and entrenched

Considering how this presidency is literally a 24/7 rolling controversy, the stability of polls is remarkable. Trump’s approval rating has improved slightly this year but remains firmly underwater, as it has since the 2016 primaries. If you expected good economic figures or the Helsinki summit would spark a shift in either direction, think again.

Over the last few extraordinary weeks, the chances about the following have risen. A ‘hard’, no deal Brexit. An extension of Article 50 beyond next March. A new Tory leader and PM. A constitutional crisis, resulting in a ‘Peoples Vote’ or another general election. Another Scottish independence referendum. Even a realignment of the UK party system.

Confused? Don’t worry, you’re in good company. The government evidently don’t know what comes next and nor, apparently, does anybody in politics or business. None of Betfair’s wide array of markets related to this unprecedented situation offer clear, confident signals.

Hard Brexit likelier as Chequers charade unravels

One thing that has become clear is the implausibility of Theresa May’s stated plan. The Chequers deal was always an internal Tory party compromise, unlikely to survive parliamentary scrutiny, let alone be accepted by the EU. It has already failed the first test, undone by several Brexiter amendments and splitting the party, perhaps irrevocably.

On the basis of those amendments and rhetoric from new Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab, the ongoing EU negotiations appear doomed. By threatening to withhold the £39BN ‘divorce settlement’. Raab may have just placed a bomb under the whole process. The EU regard that payment as a totally different matter to any future deal – a legal obligation – that had already been settled, as a precuser to the current talks.

Similarly as this comprehensive RTE piece explains, the UK government are nowhere near squaring the circles required to enable a hard border with Ireland. Few expect any of this to be resolved during the summer recess, in time for the critical EU summit in October. Instead, politicians will be positioning for conference season and the aftermath.

Everything could kick off in October

The key date is October 18th, when a deal is supposed to be finalised. May will either return with less than a replica of the deeply unpopular Chequers plan or negotiations might fail. Even if a deal does emerge, it may well not be ratified by the European Parliament in time for the March 29th deadline.

After an unforgettable day of political drama, Betfair markets were downgrading the likelihood of Theresa May being imminently forced out of office but her position remains perilous. The Prime Minister is rated 42% likely to leave office this year at odds of 2.4. In our tri-monthly market, July-Sept is trading at 3.5 (28%) down, from around 8.0 over the weekend. Earlier in the day, however, both markets had traded odds-on, down to 1.61 and 1.88 respectively.

As Max Liu reported yesterday, the betting exploded into life late Sunday after David Davis’ resignation, to be followed later by Boris Johnson. As May dealt with a largely hostile and even derisory Commons, Sky News ran a split-screen with footage of Foreign Secretary’s official residence, avidly awaiting Johnson’s resignation statement.

No imminent challenge leaves May safe for now

That seemed a moment of maximum peril but, as the subsequent market drift implies, there remains no indication of an imminent confidence vote or leadership challenge. None of the resigning Ministers called for May to go and other prominent Brexiteers like Jacob Rees Mogg were quick to reaffirm that they were after a change in policy, not PM. Later, she reportedly survived a meeting of the backbench 1922 Committee unscathed. Betfair Sportsbook is now offering 5/6 about a Conservative leadership contest this year.

Predictably, Number Ten were adamant that she would fight any challenge and that is probably enough to deter rebel MPs, for now. They don’t have the numbers to force her out yet, or a <strong>challenger in-waiting</strong>. However none of these internal party machinations do anything to resolve the fundamental problem. Their belatedly agreed Brexit negotiating position – constantly over-billed as a ‘deal’ – is doomed. Cabinet unity took all but 48 hours to disintegrate, further parliamentary defeats look likely and much of it is unacceptable to the EU.

Grassroots dismay leaves the PM extremely vulnerable

If Tories and Brexiters among the wider public didn’t like the Chequers proposals – weekend polls showed confidence in her Brexit deal-making ability at a new low, while 56% of Tory members want her to stand down within a year – they will hate the eventual, watered-down deal that emerges. Talk of betrayal is already in the air from MPs, activists and the Brexit media. A narrative is building that, whatever emerges, it will be “Brexit in name only.”

When the Lewisham East By-Election was announced – in light of Labour MP Heidi Alexander quitting to take a job with London Mayor Sadiq Khan – my immediate thoughts were conspiratorial. A mid-term by-election in an ultra safe Labour seat, which overwhelmingly voted Remain, offers the perfect chance to challenge Labour’s pro-Brexit stance and potentially destabilise Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the party.

For two years, there has been talk of a new ‘centrist’ party, fundamentally based around reversing Brexit. This constituency and contest (for which the Tories present no threat to Labour), would have been perfect to launch it, and with Blairite prince across the water David Miliband taking a prominent anti-Brexit role, they even had a leader in-waiting. As one of the MPs that tried to bring down Corbyn in 2015, and a staunch Remainer, Alexander might even have been in on such a plot.

Lib Dems certain to benefit from protesting Remainers

As it turns out, I was over-estimating Remainers’ ability to play the political game. Instead, Lewisham voters angry about Brexit and/or wanting to make a protest against Corbyn, will be mostly voting for the traditional mid-term protest party. The Lib Dems are buoyant and projecting around an six-fold increase on their 2017 vote share to claim second place.

Their problem is that even such a dramatic improvement, which seems extremely likely under the circumstances, won’t get them anywhere near victory. This is one of the safest Labour seats in the country – they won 68% of the vote in 2017 and have a clean sweep on the council. Even in the disaster of 2010, when Lib Dems were peaking among such metropolitan voters and eating into Labour’s share, they won with 43%.

Today marks the one year anniversary of the General Election and what feels like the last time anything changed in UK politics. The polls are more or less identical, showing a small Conservative lead. The path of Brexit – even the government’s preferred path – is as clear as mud. The Prime Minister remains in mortal danger, amid constant rumours of her imminent demise, while rivals blatantly defy her and position for the succession.

Leaked Johnson speech piles pressure on May

Boris Johnson last night warned of a Brexit meltdown, called for Theresa May to show ‘guts’ in negotiations, the Treasury ‘the heart of Remain’ and, most incredibly, that Donald Trump would handle it better. This, after David Davis deliberately provoked widespread speculation of an imminent resignation, before reaching an uneasy compromise over the length of May’s post-Brexit ‘backstop’ plan.

By naming an end-date of 2021 for that backstop period, the Tories may have delayed their civil war for the time being but the writing is on the wall for May. Her exit during this parliament is a matter of when, rather than if. Authority over the Cabinet is evidently lost and polls taken earlier this week recorded that 24% of Tory members want her gone now and 69% before the next election.

Gove emerges as the likeliest replacement

In our market on the year of May’s exit, 2018 and 2019 are both trading around 2.8. Those combined odds means she’s rated only 28% likely to survive until 2020, let alone be around to complete the backstop period.

In the meantime, Betfair markets are signalling a new front-runner to replace May as Next Conservative Leader and Next Prime Minister. Michael Gove, recommended at 14.0 back in February, has been backed heavily and is now trading at 6.6 and 7.4 to assume those respective positions.

Whilst one must never forget the terrible record of early Conservative leader favourites, I reckon Gove’s odds still have a long way to fall. Party leader markets are never as open as they first appear. Front-runners and factional leaders emerge, like-minded MPs quickly jump behind them and the field is whittled down to at most, a handful of realistic contenders. Identify them early and you should be sitting on a nice position when the contest arrives.

Inevitably, the speculation has begun. With Theresa May’s Brexit plan going nowhere as she struggles to square circles between Cabinet, Parliament and country, The Sunday Times reports that Tory MPs are gearing up for a election this autumn. The odds about 2018 have halved in our Year of Next Election market but, at odds of [8.0], Betfair traders remain sceptical.

What are we to make of it? The Tories are certainly divided and, right now, no compromise solution regarding the Customs Union or Irish border seems to be getting traction. This is not a good time to be in government, but are they really prepared to risk it all by calling an election four years early?

Tory electoral prospects are nothing like 2017

We have of course been here before in 2017, when very few predicted May’s intentions. There was no significant gamble to indicate a snap poll until the April morning she announced it. Such are the perils of this particular political market – which ultimately involves reading somebody else’s mind.

Critically, however, this situation is very different. Back then, Tories were 20% up in the polls and relishing a once in a century opportunity to destroy the opposition. May was enjoying her honeymoon period, positioning herself as the defender of Brexit against saboteurs plotting to undermine the referendum result. A big majority would give her a free hand over parliamentary rebels on either side.

The consequential disaster fundamentally changed the environment. Nobody thinks, as so many Westminster pundits did then, that Labour are facing a Scotland-style wipeout. They are very much competitive and at least capable of again denying the Tories their majority. The PM is beleaguered on many fronts and only their most partisan supporters could argue that Brexit has been handled competently. Why on earth would they expect a better result now?

Has Corbyn peaked?

Well, there are a couple of reasons. Many read the recent local election results as evidence that Corbynism has already peaked. There is certainly no psephological evidence that Labour are on course for a majority and his approval ratings are shocking – 10% worse than the unpopular May.

Last week, I pondered how bad the latest council elections would be for the Tories. The answer is nothing like as bad as experts predicted. Rather than take a mid-term thrashing, they were tied for projected national vote share with Labour, whose 77 gains were way below the widely forecast 200 target. According to BBC analysis, their vote was up on 2012, 2014 and 2016.

Any eight-year old government would take that and the market reaction was predictably positive. The Conservatives fell from 1.98 to 1.9 to win Most Seats at the next election and, despite a disastrous fortnight reeling from the Windrush scandal, Theresa May appears to have avoided any coup speculation. The big picture, however, remains anything but clear cut.

Ignore The Canary. Labour had a disappointing night

To some on the Left, merely winning the most seats and advancing in London represents progress that a hostile media is downplaying. Whatever Labour’s wider, toxic relationship with certain media outlets, this is palpably untrue.

Here are some objective facts about last Thursday's local election results courtesy of @skwawkboxWouldn't it be nice if the msm did its job instead of parroting the misleading narrative promulgated by naysayers, malcontents and of course the Tories too. https://t.co/m43D15kMkB

It is true that much of the media coverage was overly gloomy, because early results outside the cities were terrible and it was clear by that stage Labour wouldn’t hit their targets in London. As the night wore on, better news emerged from the cities, Plymouth, Kirklees and Trafford – altering the narrative to the draw by as implied by vote share.

But to be tied with the government mid term is a fundamentally poor long-term signal. Before Thursday, Stephen Fisher of ElectionsEtc was mooting somewhere approaching a 10% lead as a target. When Ed Miliband won these exact elections, he led by 2% on PNS. A year later, he lost nationally by 6%.

It is more or less standard for governments to struggle in mid-term, as angry voters become motivated to register a protest. That particularly applies once they’ve been elected three times and are in the midst of multiple crises. Against a backdrop of the Windrush scandal, Amber Rudd’s resignation and Cabinet and parliamentary division over Brexit, the last thing Theresa May needs right now is elections.

How all that pans out will partly depend upon Thursday’s polls across England and the narrative that emerges from it. Betfair has markets on all the major councils plus the mayoralty contests in Watford and Sheffield City – all of which will stay live ‘in-play’ until results are declared. Plenty to keep us entertained overnight!

Labour expected to win big, particularly in London

The nature of councils up for election compounds Tory fears. Labour already hold more than half the seats in play, nearly 900 more than the Conservatives and, according to renowned psephologists Rallings and Thrasher, are on course to gain a further 200. Whereas the parties are tied nationally, they trail by 22% in the latest London poll and have no chance in the mayoralties.

Much has happened since these seats were last contested. The Tories have won two elections, between which their position deteriorated markedly among younger, liberal voters and in ethnically diverse cities. Politics has become a lot more polarised, not least due to Brexit. Labour have been transformed under Jeremy Corbyn.

Inner-cities are fertile territory for Corbyn

These elections are a timely test for Corbyn that he should pass. Labour are now a mass movement with half a million members, a vast number of whom live in London. Momentum have transformed their campaigning skills. After the General Election, one must assume that they will more effectively get their vote out – a historic weakness for the Left that, if improved, has the potential to transform the electoral maths of many areas.

The scale of that improvement will define Labour’s night. They start a long way behind in the flagship Tory council of Wandsworth but are slight favourites to gain control in one of the closest betting heats of the night. That would be a famous gain and their dream scenario would involve also gaining any of Barnet, Hillingdon or Westminster.

Betfair markets related to Donald Trump’s future are kicking off again as FBI investigations into the US President and his closest allies intensifies. At odds of 1.63, the chance of him serving a full first-term in office has slipped to 61% from around 68%. At yesterday’s low point, it was just 58%.

As ever with the Trump rollercoaster ride, this is an unprecedented scenario for political bettors. Never before has pricing up the chance of a president being removed from office been a priority. There is no formbook or scoreboard. Our judgement is reliant upon our own interpretation of a developing news story, stemming from mainstream media which is far from trusted by all. In these polarised times, that means we will draw very different conclusions.

Personally I’m a long-term sceptic of Trump’s ability to survive and predicted these odds would start moving in last month’s chaos update. Arrest or impeachment has seemed realistic from the outset and the likelihood is getting stronger.

However we Trump layers were famously humiliated in 2016 and there are plenty of bettors who think the Russia investigation is a rabbit hole. Thanks to this rare opportunity to hedge between political markets that are contingent upon one another, we can both win.

In effect, Trump’s political future is a series of stand-alone events – an accumulator. In order to win a second term, he needs to survive a full-term, choose to run again and then win the Republican Nomination, then finally the general election. Any combination of none, some or all of those events is plausible.

By trading and hedging between these markets over the next year, we should be able to set up profitable positions ahead of 2020, for which markets will really liven up next summer, following declarations and with the first primary debates. Here’s how some potential scenarios could pan out and thoughts on the best way to play them.

Of course a fundamental problem with employing such strategies in size is tying up considerable sums for up to 2.5 years. Another is that we can only make a rough prediction regarding future odds in these markets. In some cases, we may need to cash out of positions early before reinvesting – for example Trump survival, once the primaries start but before he’s completed a full term.

I’m therefore loathe to recommend a precise, rigid staking plan. My strategy is basically to lay as much of these Trump 2020 odds for as much as my bank will afford, building the position as we get closer to the primaries. Another advantage of laying 2020 is that, once funds are tied up by the initial bet, we can lay others to the same risk. These markets always include no-hopers and so far, I’ve added Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Mark Zuckerberg and Dwayne Johnson – at combined odds around 7.0. Along with the Trump lays, the combined odds of my lay position is around 2.2.

Below, however, is a rough guide for readers to follow, to be updated in the months and years ahead. To be clear – I’m not having the Trump cover part of the bet yet, because I think the end may well be nigh. But if you want to hedge from the outset, here’s the plan.

Lay (oppose) Donald Trump to be Next President 100u @ 3.2

Lay Donald Trump to be Republican Nominee 100u @ 1.64

Lay Donald Trump to leave office in 2018 10u @ 10.0

Next step: On 1/1/2019, Lay Trump to leave office in 2019. Stakes to be advised at the time.

To summarise, if Trump either leaves office early or decides not to run for a second term, the first two lays will yield 200 units profit. Our maximum loss on the other side of the trade at this stage is 90 units, if he goes this year. So an imminent departure would settle all those positions and yield 110 units profit (minus whatever small cashout loss if so desired).

If he’s still there at the end of 2018, we’ll make ten units on the first leg of our Trump saver accumulator. The plan then will be to lay 2019 to lose 100 units – the initial 90 risk plus the ten units profit.

Since Donald Trump became President, his Democrat opponents have dominated a spate of special elections, thanks in no small part to a remarkable surge in enthusiasm and turnout. Many of us firmly believe this ‘Blue Wave’ will carry them to a majority in the House of Representatives in November. Tonight, we will get the best indication yet of it’s scale.

It is remarkable that the race for Pennsylvania’s 18th District is even a talking point, let alone a close betting heat. This district voted for Trump over Clinton by 20% and is very conservative on most issues. In the early stages the Republicans were backed down to 1.28 (78%) for a ninth straight win here but tonight that rating fell briefly to just 40% before resettling around even money.

Gold-standard poll drives Betfair market to flip

The market moves are a direct response to polling data – in particular a 6% lead for Conor Lamb in today’s Monmouth survey. Although the previous trend had shown a swing towards the Democrat, Rick Saccone generally maintained a clear if declining lead. None of the pollsters concerned, however, carry anything like the weight of Monmouth.

Leaving aside the polling trends, all recent history suggests Lamb is very much the underdog. During the Trump era, Democrats have outperformed Hillary Clinton’s 2016 performance by around 13-14%. This one requires 20, or 17 even compared to Obama’s performance against Romney in 2012. P-18 has the second oldest electorate of any district in the state and the Trump swing here was among the party’s top third in the country. His MAGA rhetoric worked a charm in this pivotal state and one would expect his steel tariffs to also play well.

Democrat turnout is surging everywhere during the Trump era

Equally though, it is far from clear that Trump supporters are as motivated to flock to the polls for a GOP insider that he merely endorses. That hasn’t been the case elsewhere. Rather, the consistent theme across special elections in all types of district has been marked Democrat overperformance. Opposition parties are usually much better motivated and the response to Trump has been a huge rise in Democrat activism and engagement across the country. Look at the turnout for their primaries in Texas last week, for example.

Despite having four days to digest the latest bombshell developments in the Russia investigation, those same markets have barely moved. At odds of 1.52, Trump is now rated 65% likely to survive a full-term and a mere 8.8 (11%) chance to go before the end of this year. Likewise his odds to be the 2020 Republican Nominee and Next President have both shortened, to 1.6 and 3.15 respectively.

Market trends defy the news cycle

Considering how that investigation is proceeding and everything else to happen in Trumpworld during that period, that trend sounds remarkable. In seven weeks since I last wrote on the subject, we’ve had the ‘Shit-hole’ furore, a government shutdown, Rob Porter’s dismissal, Stormy Daniels and another paid-off, hushed-up affair, this time with Playboy model Karen Macdougal. Dozens of senior officials still cannot get a security clearance.

Any one of those scandals would have destabilised past presidencies. Then on Friday, Robert Mueller’s investigation took a significant turn, naming 13 Russian individuals and 30 companies in a 37-page indictment that laid bare how Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Seizing upon the statement that this particular indictment was targeted specifically against Russians, rather than Americans who participated unknowingly, Trump immediately claimed to be vindicated and has been tweeting prolifically that it proves there was ‘No Collusion’. Even when one might expect a presidential response to the Florida school shootings, Trump used it to attack the FBI.

Very sad that the FBI missed all of the many signals sent out by the Florida school shooter. This is not acceptable. They are spending too much time trying to prove Russian collusion with the Trump campaign – there is no collusion. Get back to the basics and make us all proud!

If anyone still needs a measure to illustrate the unpredictability of politics in 2018, check out the Next Conservative and Labour Leader markets. Neither has what could be described as a hot favourite and only three candidates are trading at single figure odds.

Little wonder perhaps, in light of recent upsets and grassroots uprisings, but this is markedly different from the historical norm. Usually there is an heir apparent and in the Tories’ case, that early favourite has gone onto lose every single time. That dynamic may have already played out, as Boris Johnson traded well below 3.0 on election night but has since drifted to the current 8.4 and beyond.

In seeking to reverse that decline with his much-hyped Brexit speech, the Foreign Secretary effectively kick-started the leadership contest. Senior Cabinet colleagues will also get to lay out their post-Brexit vision in the coming days and shape debate within the party. While nobody can confidently predict the date of Theresa May’s departure, positioning to succeed her is very much underway.

While this is unarguably the most open Tory contest in memory, with at least a dozen names worthy of meaningful consideration, remember that they rarely turn out to be so competitive. Most names being touted turn out to have no leadership ambitions, at least for now, and jump behind a contender.

When the official contest comes around, there will be probably be roughly a handful involved. In the last four Tory contests dating back to 1997, either four or five candidates were on the first ballot paper. Ditto Labour’s two leadership contests in the past 30 years.

As in all of those, the task for bettors is to build a value position from which to cash out for profit later by identify the runners – all of whom will almost certainly trade much shorter at time of race. That strategy certainly worked with May – recommended twice at double-figure odds to succeed David Cameron when George Osborne was all the rage.

They may be polling below 2% and be all but wiped out in local government but you just can’t keep UKIP out of the headlines. Albeit for all the wrong reasons. With leader Henry Bolton clinging to power after an overwhelming vote of no confidence and serial resignations, a fourth leadership contest in less than two years appears inevitable. If anything like the other three, expect plenty of drama, controversy and carnage on our markets.

Before getting to some potential runners, a quick recap of their recent history. Almost wholly associated with one man, the party were forced to start again when Nigel Farage quit following the EU Referendum. This was actually his second term as leader, having resigned in 2009. His replacement Lord Pearson quickly stood down, admitting he ‘wasn’t much good’.

The first post-Farage leadership election was won by Diane James after a farcical contest. Stephen Woolfe was trading heavily odds-on when being disqualified for handing in his application 17 minutes late. He was also hospitalised after a fight with fellow UKIP MEP Mike Hookem. Three other front-line candidates were also ruled ineligible to stand.

James lasted all of 18 days, before resigning and admitting she didn’t have the authority to lead this party, to be swiftly replaced by Paul Nuttall. The former deputy leader and regular TV spokesman could at least call on widespread support within the party, and won 63% of the vote. Having been billed as the working-class voice to break into Labour’s heartlands, his credibility was soon shot after a disastrous Stoke by-election campaign.

Following last June’s national General Election humiliation, Nuttall stood down, to be replaced by Bolton who won with a far from convincing 29%. This after three others had traded at odds-on for the leadership – Farage, Anne-Marie Waters and Peter Whittle.

Assuming Bolton is indeed forced out, identifying their next leader is one of the trickiest tasks imaginable in this sphere of betting. Our early market is open with the favourite available at 5/1. Here’s a quick guide to some of the leading candidates.

As a serving member of the London Assembly, Kurten has become one of the most prominent UKIP politicians. He finished third to Bolton on 17% – better than generally expected – and was education spokesman until resigning yesterday. With fewer than 8,000 followers on Twitter, Kurten is hardly a household name. He’s best known for his anti-gay marriage stance and claiming gay people were likelier to be abused as children.

We may be living through a volatile, unpredictable political era but there is little evidence of it in recent opinion polls. Since last June’s election, they have moved only slightly towards Labour and another snap election would likely produce a very similar result. Such is the inertia that pundits feel compelled to comment on 1% swings either way. The betting has barely moved in months, with Labour now 1.93 favourites to win Most Seats, with the Conservatives on 2.14.

A more interesting discussion involves thinking ahead. There is no election on the horizon and conditions will inevitably be very different when it does arrive. The big question, therefore, is whether Labour’s positive trajectory will continue, or whether they are vulnerable to a Tory comeback. The answer is far from straightforward.

Under Corbyn, Labour support has a low ceiling

Although the commentariat has been repeatedly proved wrong about Jeremy Corbyn, most pundits remain hugely sceptical. They argue that, regardless of his and Labour’s progress during 2017, Corbynism has a low ceiling which has already been reached.

According to this analysis, Labour should be much further ahead at this stage of the cycle given the government’s travails. It notes Corbyn’s stubbornly poor personal ratings – he consistently trails the hapless Theresa May for best PM – and deep public distrust of Labour’s economic competence. The government will recover and, when May is inevitably replaced, the Tories will regain the lead.

Proponents of this theory – including Tony Blair – point to most previous electoral cycles when governments did indeed recover, and note that Labour lost three elections on the bounce during the 1980s and 1990s, despite substantial mid-term leads. Before Blair became PM in 1997, he regularly held leads in excess of 15%. So too David Cameron’s Conservatives before winning power in 2010.

The UK party system has fundamentally re-aligned this century

Regardless of the personalities and differences in their particular Labour agendas – which may or may not be relevant – that theory cannot simply be applied to a very different era. No analysis of recent election shocks is complete without reference to the transformation of our party system.

It was inevitable once Donald Trump had changed the game – betting an a US Presidential Election would never be the same again. The fields are no longer merely Republican and Democrat politicians but a wide array of characters from popular culture and business.

At this early stage at least, celebrities are the candidates that bettors seem most interested in backing. With one barnstorming Golden Globes speech, Oprah Winfrey is already rated Trump’s closest rival for 2020.

The reaction to Oprah’s speech demonstrates precisely why celebrities increasingly have the edge. She garnered more talk in three days than anyone else among the crowded Democratic Nominee field have managed in a year. Trump won the primary by monopolising media coverage and Oprah would likely have the same effect.

Their highly positive reaction suggests prominent Democrat voices are taking this seriously. This is a party still traumatised by defeat and on course for an incredibly divisive primary involving a vast field – exactly what plunged their opponents into turmoil. They have no clear leader or even front-runner. To many, Oprah would be the panacea. A unifying figure who connects with parts of the electorate nobody else could reach and, while also a billionaire celebrity, the antithesis of Trump.

It’s a safe bet that big Democrat donors and strategists have been sketching out plans since her Golden Globes speech. There will be many voices trying to persuade her and betting interest will persist until she categorically declares no intention to run. I can’t see her Next President odds getting much bigger than the current 13.0 in the short-term given the inevitable speculation. Oprah v Trump is beyond the wildest dreams of media executives.

A less safe bet is that she actually runs. While Winfrey is naturally flattered by the attention and bound to consider it, she has previously said never. Running for president is a gruelling experience, demanding total commitment. The primaries alone are a marathon. Politics inevitably involves taking sides and alienating people. Every word you’ve ever uttered in public will be pored over. Would somebody of her elevated status want to risk the brand built over a lifetime?

Considering that no such market existed about President Obama or Bush’s survival, or would have attracted much interest, the current odds are hardly a ringing endorsement. Nevertheless, it is notable that markets remain unmoved by the agenda-hogging revelations in ‘Fire and Fury’ – the book on Trump’s presidency that has rocked US politics and whose author predicts will bring him down.

Woolf’s book reveals even Trump allies agree with his critics

Michael Woolf’s claims echo countless news reports and the longstanding warnings from Trump biographer Tony Schwartz about his behaviour – obsessively watching cable TV, eating cheeseburgers, lacking the attention span to read anything of length or concentrate – and childlike, narcissistic personality. The lack of basic political knowledge is not a feigned stump tactic. Woolf says 100% of the people around Trump question his intelligence.

It reinforces the consensus that has grown across the spectrum since he entered the political fray in 2015. These barely refuted anecdotes confirm that consensus is shared by his friends, allies, colleagues and even family. This isn’t even the GOP establishment, whose belated support for Trump was blatantly opportunistic. Steve Bannon is a true believer and architect of his agenda, while others extensively quoted in the book are still serving in government.

It all fits the commonly-used Mad King analogy and feels more like a movie than the real world. Comical and terrifying in equal measure and surely unsustainable. Yet Trump has been generating chaos and absurdity ever since his primary campaign began over two years ago, and repeatedly defied those of us who deemed it unsustainable. Then, as now, removing Trump requires the acquiescence of Republicans.

Whilst political betting is fast becoming a global phenomenon, nothing still quite compares to an election in the country that revolutionised it. Each of the last four years has seen a major domestic poll and our latest General Election involved a wider array of speciality markets than ever before. There is nothing major scheduled for 2018 but, given the febrile condition of UK politics, that could change at a moment’s notice. After all, there was nothing scheduled for 2017 either.

Ever since Theresa May scraped over the line in June, damaged and reliant on the DUP, speculation has been rife about how long her government can last. At various points, pundits have predicted she had just weeks left in the job. The government has already lost a key Brexit vote in parliament, along with several key ministers. History suggests such fragility is unsustainable in the long-term, which explains why 2022 – the official date of the next election – is trading barely ahead of either 2018 or 2019.

I’m not convinced. Even if the government is in meltdown, or May is replaced, it is not compelled to call an election. It would be a massive distraction from Brexit negotiations and Labour could only force it by marshalling non-Conservatives for a no-confidence vote – an extremely tricky task.

With the Tories trailing in the polls and fearful of losing the campaign like last time, there is no incentive whatsoever for them to give Jeremy Corbyn an opportunity to become PM any earlier than is legally required. At this stage in the electoral cycle, I’m backing 2022 at 3.25.

For the third straight year, Betfair markets illustrated the new politics. Highly unpredictable, with conventional wisdom in crisis and unprecedented volatility. We have seen an outsider, with no party infrastructure, gatecrash the French presidency. The Democrats won Alabama. And Jeremy Corbyn came within a few constituencies of pulling off the greatest upset in the history of political betting. Yes, considering where Labour started that campaign, Corbyn becoming PM would have represented a much bigger shock than Donald Trump becoming US president.

Yet the landscape has changed quite markedly over the past 12 months. For liberals or basically anyone on the Left, last Christmas was the most miserable time. The Brexit vote destroyed their assumption that the dominance of their values, that had once rebuilt the continent, was part of an inevitable historic trajectory. Then the greatest democracy on earth voted for a populist who shamelessly and frequently played the race card, boasted of grabbing women by the pussy, pined for the days when police beat up protesters and threatened to shut the press down.

Yet for all the panic amongst the so-called liberal establishment, and soul-searching about the motives of voters the elite no-longer understood, the revolution on the Right stalled in 2017. One by one, their poster children took an electoral beating.

Overhyped alt-right, anti-EU candidates flopped

The backlash started with the Netherlands. We were told by Brexiters that Nexit was next. That the long-running poll lead of Geert Wilders and his PVV party showed the Dutch were sick of liberalism, immigration and the EU bureaucracy. They traded odds-on to win the most seats, and he as favourite for PM, prior to their election in February. Yet this time the gamble fell spectacularly flat and, even as culture wars raged during the campaign, the ‘Dutch Trump‘ was resoundingly rejected.

Not a problem, said the alt-right army on social media. Wilders was stitched up by the other parties but that would not be possible in France, where Marine Le Pen would at the very least win the first round, en route to the presidency and then delivering Frexit. Just like Trump, her rural voters were loyal and better motivated. As it turned out, Le Pen and Le Front Nationale only finished second in the first round, before being obliterated by a two-to-one margin by Emmanuel Macron. So much for the ‘silent majority‘.

If you thought US politics would return to normality soon, tonight’s special election in Alabama should end that delusion. A race that would in normal times be entirely predictable and barely noted beyond the keenest followers has become a huge international story – for what it represents, the implications and because it remains on a knife edge. The polls are all over the place and the betting trends remain unsettled. Rarely have we seen a less conventional or predictable election.

The sole reason for any doubt over which party would win this Senate seat is the Republican candidate. Roy Moore – an ultra-conservative judge famous for holding extreme positions against homosexuality and Islam; who has appeared on conspiracy theory radio and said 9/11 was God’s punishment for American immorality – was hugely controversial from the moment he entered the primary.

In running against and defeating GOP establishment pick Luther Strange, Moore became a symbol of former Trump guru Steve Bannon’s hostile takeover of the party. The man who would reshape the party in his and Donald Trump’s image has campaigned for Moore from the outset and stayed loyal.

None of those positions or associations would have stopped him winning the seat comfortably. Moore’s problems really started when the Washington Post alleged he had molested a 14 year-old girl in 1979. Several other women duly came forward and their accusations have been deemed credible by a variety of commentators. In response, the Republican National Committee withdrew financial support and even Trump waited a long while before endorsing.

Typically for these hypartisan times, the accusations have been rubbished as ‘fake news’ and the mainstream media (apart from ultra-conservative Fox) is trusted ever less by the Republican base. Moore has denied everything and, once any hope of him standing down had gone, the party leadership came on board. Some Republicans are nevertheless determined to take a moral stand – most notably Alabama’s Senior Senator Richard Shelby – who says the ‘state deserves better’.

For the Democrats to win any seat in this reddest of red states seems unimaginable yet the very least a series of contradictory polls suggest is that Democrat challenger Doug Jones has a chance. An incredible Fox News poll yesterday showed Jones an incredible 10% up but the overwhelming majority have Moore winning by single-digits – the latest RCP average is Moore +2.2%. Note, however, that FiveThirtyEight say the only ‘gold standard’ poll put Jones 3% up.

As her government becomes engulfed in one crisis after another, Betfair punters are backing an imminent, or at least relatively swift, exit for Theresa May. At odds of 8.2, the Prime Minister leaving post before the end of the year is still only rated equivalent to a 12% chance but today, January-March 2018 hit its lowest mark yet at 3.15 (32%). Any time during 2018 is rated 50% likely at 2.02.

According to almost every strand of political opinion, May is doomed. At best, forced to hang on through the torturous Brexit process, wielding little power over her cabinet until they resolve their differences and work out a plan to replace her. There is an argument raging over whether this is the UK’s worst government ever. Fair or not, this PM is surely having to endure the most humiliating tenure.

Tory critics continue to dominate the headlines

This morning’s crisis involved rising backbencher Johnny Mercer using the Telegraph to claim the government ‘smelt of decline’ and risked losing credibility. By the afternoon, former Education Secretary Nicky Morgan was plunging the knife, calling May ‘tone-deaf and tin-eared’ regarding Brexit. Calls persist from across the spectrum to sack Boris Johnson, which most doubt she has the authority to do so.

Whilst such odds, or even merely the existence of such betting options at this stage of a presidency, are unprecedented, it should also be noted that the market didn’t crash yesterday.
The weekend news that Special Counsel Robert Mueller would file the first charges emerging from his extraordinary Russia investigation had already nudged that price above the 50% mark, where it has been hovering ever since Trump was elected.

Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, former chair and deputy-chair of the Trump campaign, are charged on 12 counts, including money laundering, tax evasion, acting as an unregistered foreign agent and conspiring against the USA. A third Trump advisor George Papadopoulos has also been charged, having admitted lying to the FBI about his connections and attempts to co-ordinate meetings between Russian officials and Trump.

Like all matters during the Trump Impeachment Saga, the significance of these developments rather depends on media preferences. Almost every mainstream media outlet reported it as a turning point – the beginning of a process that will engulf, weaken and perhaps destroy the Trump presidency.

On the other side, led by his own tweets, Trump’s surrogates and online army persist with their alternative version of events. They claim the charges apply to an era long before Manafort and Gates represented Trump. That the charges offer no evidence of collusion with his campaign and that, in fact, the Russia investigation will end up rebounding on Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.

We’ve got a great event to look forward to at the beginning of next month – a unique opportunity to hear some of the finest minds from the world of betting and network with a like-minded audience of gambling enthusiasts.

The annual Matchbook Traders Conference has already developed a tremendous reputation and will take place in London on November 1st. If you’re planning to attend, drop me a line on here or on Twitter.

From our particular perspective, the highlight among an illustrious list of guest speakers is Harry Enten from Fivethirtyeight, who will be presenting “The Future of Political Betting.”

But whatever your preferred market or angle of expertise, this conference is a must-see event, with famous guest speakers from across the industry. See here for the full list of speakers and events.

The sponsors have kindly provided two free tickets to raffle amongst my readers so I’m running this competition over the next couple of weeks. In the absence of a big, imminent political betting market, I’m looking to another of my favourite markets and next week’s prestigious golf event in Shanghai.

To enter, simply complete the question and tie-breaker listed below by replying in the comments section beneath this article. Your entry will be confirmed by my approval of the comment. Therefore everybody will be able to see all the entries, adding to the entertainment in-running. Entries close 23:00 BST on Wednesday 25th October. For any further questions, please send a Direct Message via Twitter.

Question: List the top-five finishers at the WGC-HSBC Champions Trophy in any order.

The result will be settled on a ‘last man standing’ basis. Entries without the winner will be discarded, followed by those without the runner-up and so on. In the event of a dead-heat, the following tie-breaker will apply.

Tie-breaker: What will be the margin of strokes between 1st and 30th place?

£100 Discount on tickets purchased here

Alternatively you can buy tickets directly for the Matchbook Traders Conference via the link below. In order to claim a £100 discount, simply enter the promo code POLGAMBLER100

Politics has only become uncertain because the rules of the game have changed

In order to predict the future of politics, we need to fully understand the present. An obvious logic, for sure, yet the failure of experts to follow it lies behind the numerous political earthquakes of recent years. Politics is not inherently unpredictable, nor detached from past experience, but the way in which it is practiced has changed fast. The failure of the political class to keep pace with those changes explains why so few saw Donald Trump, Brexit and Jeremy Corbyn coming and why, to this day, the counter-reaction has been so ineffective.

The causes and signals were there if we had cared to look. Each represented a reaction to significant cleavages and perspectives within society, but which were sometimes excluded from the political mainstream.

When Donald Trump declared his candidacy in 2015, he had already become a significant figure on the hard right of US politics, since leading the ‘birther’ conspiracy movement. That enabled him to fill a void in US politics that always existed, yearning for an outlet.

Anti-government sentiment has long been deeply engrained on the right – never more so than after 2008. Despite two terms and a largely favourable domestic political context, the George W Bush era ended in turmoil, with the worst approval ratings of any departing President since Nixon. Deregulation had led to an unprecedented financial crisis and the initial instinct to let banks fail had backfired spectacularly, requiring a historic bailout. The simultaneous wars promoted by neo-conservatives from the 1990s onwards had proved catastrophic. Mainstream conservative ideology was in crisis.

The result was a black president whose voting record was far to the left of even the Democratic Party mainstream. The minority of Republican voters motivated by race were instantly joined by small government advocates furious about the banking bailouts. Amidst the racial politics and culture wars that soon took centre-stage, it is often forgotten that the Tea Party (Taxed Enough Already) started in response to Rick Santelli’s rant on CNBC regarding a small bailout for homeowners. From early 2009, this nascent movement built an alternative information ecosystem of blogs and talk radio.

As the Conservative response to Obama became more militant, Congress was inevitably gridlocked – thus reinforcing the notion of ‘useless government’. A celebrity billionaire businessman, slating the failed establishment, was the perfect antidote. From the outset of that unforgettably anarchic primary, I predicted an outsider would emerge as the nominee. Sadly, I bet big on Ted Cruz being that outsider – dismissing Trump as a clueless amateur who would unravel under scrutiny and lacked the expertise to tap into that new ecosystem. Likewise, I did not foresee Cambridge Analytica et al outsmarting Hilary Clinton’s digital organisation during the subsequent presidential election.

Brexit was a much better result for me in personal terms – easier to predict, perhaps, because it did not involve individual candidates. As a great believer in qualitative analysis – by which I mean, listening to the instant opinions and anecdotes of average citizens that help to create a narrative – I always felt Brexit had around a 50 per cent chance. For decades, polls on EU membership were always tight. The UK never bought into the European project on an emotional level; it was transactional and elite-led.

If you add to this mix the crises regarding migration and the Euro – again unresolved and reinforcing the perception an incompetent establishment – it created the perfect conditions for an upset. Older leavers were also much likelier to be registered than younger remainers, and certain to be better motivated to vote. Those factors were enough to swing an inevitably tight race (and it is possible that the absence of them in any future referendum might produce the reverse outcome).

The rise of Jeremy Corbyn represents the clearest example of a detached political mainstream. This was my finest hour as a political gambler yet, for at least a fortnight after tipping him at 24-1 to become Labour leader in 2015, the mainstream media refused to take him seriously. This was despite a wealth of publicly available evidence pointing in his direction, such as online polls, social media campaigns, the total lack of enthusiasm and often outright hostility from Labour members towards the other candidates, and the response at early hustings.

The ‘Westminster village’ simply refused to believe that another worldview on the left existed – a sentiment which persisted up Owen Smith’s challenge to Corbyn in 2016. There has always been a substantial segment of left opinion that was hostile to neoliberalism and anti-war. An anti-corporate movement had been thriving for decades, most recently in the Occupy movement. Their beliefs went a lot deeper into society and the labour movement than they were given credit for, particularly after the financial crisis, austerity and Labour’s electoral failures. Corbyn gave voice and representation to these groups.

A common theme linking all three historic upsets, regardless of ideology, is the democratisation and fragmentation of the media. This also explains why expert opinion was confounded. They were used to a world where they controlled the political narrative, but this world has now gone forever. In any society, most people are relatively disengaged from politics. While they may take a closer look in the run-up to the election, during the rest of the time their worldview is influenced by the voices around them: everyday opinions they hear in the workplace, the pub, at the bus stop, or on talk radio as they drive to work.

That lay opinion was once largely influenced by elite opinion in the mainstream media. Now, there is a plethora of alternative voices available via social media – which is arguably more authentic, because it comes from trusted sources such as friends, rather than a distant and often discredited corporation.

That chatter in the pub is now potentially a global conversation. At the last election, one in three Facebook users in the UK saw a Momentum video. As much as anything, that explains the Labour surge, despite mostly negative mainstream coverage. Ditto Trump and every other ‘anti-establishment’ wave; even ISIS can be partly explainedby social media and the decline of top-down politics.

If the political class wants to avoid such earthquakes in the future, it must respond. It needs to engage with segments of opinion that it once dismissed as electorally irrelevant. If it wants to stop the terrifying proliferation of ‘fake news’, it needs to directly challenge misinformation on the fora where it grows. Dismissing those who fall under its spell as cranks, conspiracists and political extremists will not do. This is a mainstream phenomenon, and the audiences are the same relatively disengaged masses that hold the balance of power within any vaguely democratic society.

Less than a year after the most memorable election in the history of political betting, it is time to start thinking seriously about the sequel. While speculation remains rife regarding whether President Donald Trump will again be the Republican candidate or even last a full term – he’s only rated 50% likely to do so at even money in our Exit Date market – their Democrat rivals are set to serve up the most exciting market for 2020.

Remember how 18 Republicans fought out that anarchic primary to be their candidate in 2016? Well the number of potential Democrat runners right now is not dissimilar. This will not be a repeat of that relatively predictable Clinton v Sanders head-to-head.

Sensing a golden opportunity to take on an extremely damaged opponent in 2020, Democrat hopefuls are already staking out electorally advantageous positions and raising their profile in the key primary states. Let’s take a closer look at some of the leading runners, at least according to the betting.

The ideal Democrat candidate these days would probably be a minority woman, currently earning medals as part of ‘The Resistance’ to Trump. Step forward the one to beat in this race. Often billed as the next Democrat superstar, Kamala Harris has been busy and vocal, fighting Trump on the left’s key issues – particularly the failed repeal of Obamacare and plan to deport ‘Dreamers’.

After weeks of overtly attempting to destabilise his boss and the media saturation that he knew it would generate, Boris Johnson has resumed favouritism to be the Next Tory Leader. However at 6.4, equivalent to a 15% chance, this market move carries nothing like the optimism that forced his odds down to 2.66 (37%) during election night.

The Foreign Secretary’s chance was also boosted by the latest Yougov poll of Tory members, which put him ahead of the pack. Given a massive advantage in terms of name recognition though, 21% isn’t an overwhelming figure in what looks a thoroughly wide-open race. We don’t even know when it will be and, while latest polls of theoretical head-to-heads point to him beating other big Tory beasts, such scenarios are unlikely to occur.

To earn a place on that ballot among members, Johnson would need to finish in the top-two among MPs. As argued a fortnight ago, that is unlikely given longstanding and growing doubts about his competence, credibility, loyalty and professionalism. Sunday’s ‘Blonde Ambition’ documentary did nothing to allay those concerns. Tory MPs are not about to put this guy in charge of the Brexit negotiations.

In any case, it would be an enormous gamble to switch leader during a process that has already made painfully slow progress – not least due to being interrupted for an unnecessary snap election. Unless May quits unexpectedly – in which case a quick coronation for David Davis would be my prediction – there will be no contest until at least mid-2019. Johnson would be simply too divisive, especially in light of his recent plotting.

If we’re looking at 2019 or later, that leaves plenty of time for younger candidates to emerge. As a focus group by Frank Luntz on BBC Sunday Politics implied, Davis is the best-placed Cabinet heavyweight but, at the age of 68, he is hardly a long-term option or liable to transform the Tory brand. To achieve that purpose, they will need to look towards the next generation.

Struggling to find a talking point to take from last week’s Lib Dem conference, much of the media opted to focus on perhaps the ultimate example of what The Independent’s Jon Rentoul would call a QTWAIN – could Vince Cable become the country’s next PM? The BBC’s Question Time even devoted ten minutes to the topic although, to be fair, the Lib Dem leader was one of the panelists.

This unlikely theory – 100/1 with the bookies and bigger on Betfair – does have some logic to it. We are living through an unprecedented era of political upsets. The fallout from Brexit has some potential to seriously re-align our party system. There is space for a so-called ‘centrist’ party while both Labour and the Conservatives lurch towards their ideological extremes.

I’ve even made precisely that argument before – with regards James Chapman’s mooted ‘Democrats’ party. Stranger things have happened than a brand new party suddenly capturing the mainstream, in times of dramatic political change. Ask Emmanuel Macron.

The fundamental problem for Cable, though, is that his party is anything but new. It’s brand is well-established and, since 2010, that brand has been ruined. Furthermore Cable and his predecessor Tim Farron have shown absolutely no indication of understanding why their reputations were destroyed.

In that respect, they make the same error that most of the political class made regarding the rise of Jeremy Corbyn and Momentum. That led so many to predict Labour would collapse in England just as they had in Scotland. Lest we forget, early in that election campaign 150 was regarded around a par total.

Back then, my first prediction for that election was a bet at 3.5 on Labour beating 177 seats (they got 262). Not because I thought there would be a hung parliament, but because I firmly believe there is a limit to the number of Conservative voters in the UK and they are currently very close to maximising it.

The consensus is now that Theresa May blew the election, yet she got 43.5% of the vote – unimaginable at any election since 1992. Perhaps with a better campaign the Tories would have got 45%, and with it a working majority, but their ceiling is scarcely higher. The fundamental dynamic in UK politics has always been Tory or not. Corbyn’s great achievement was to somehow unite the nots, who are usually split several ways between liberals, greens and nationalists.

He did it by tapping into the mood that had characterised past Lib Dem advances. A genuine agent of change from ‘politics as usual’ – remember Nick Clegg attacking ‘the labservatives’ in 2010? A brand based on idealism, liberal values and grassroots ‘pavement politics’. With living standards falling or static, foreign policies failing and the political class less trusted than ever, that space has been open for over a decade. The Lib Dems vacated it after 2010, and Corbyn has recently made it his own.

Week in, week out, Momentum activists are pouring into marginal seats that was unimaginable during the New Labour years. That used to be the Lib Dems’ preserve. Many Momentum activists, and Corbyn voters, were among the young people that fuelled ‘Cleggmania’. This summer has seen Corbyn playing to big crowds in once Lib Dem seats where Labour were irrelevant less than a decade ago – in Southport and in Cornwall. If there had been a Glastonbury festival before the 2010 election, I’d like to bet the Lib Dems would have topped a poll among that crowd.

In going into coalition with the Tories, Clegg and most Lib Dems totally misread their voters. Their loss of the university vote after betraying them over tuition fees is famous but I’ve always felt other groups were overlooked. This liberal idealist tendency, the anti-war vote picked up due to their opposition to Iraq. Tactical Labour voters in Southern marginals, told for a generation that “Only the Lib Dems can stop the Tories”. Voters who just want to kick the system – many of whom took the ideologically illiterate move towards UKIP afterwards.

Have they sought to recreate that coalition? Not in the least. Cable – before 2010 an arch-critic of austerity – now falls in line with the neoliberal hegemony that simplistically labels any extra spending as ‘unaffordable’, regardless of any longer-term payoff. He was attacking Labour for ‘Venezuelan economics’ a few weeks ago, only to jump immediately on the bandwagon to scrap the public sector pay cap the moment it offered a headline opportunity.

Rather than court the people who supported his party’s opposition to the Iraq war, or build a tactical alliance with Labour, Farron couldn’t wait to attack Corbyn’s foreign policy critique during the election. It reeked of the opportunistic, swing-both-ways tactics that critics have always attacked the Lib Dems for. It is wholly out of touch with this era, when authenticity and principle is so valuable.

In my experience, Lib Dem members are a bit like me. Political nerds really interested in the most detailed areas of the subject. However I’ve never deluded myself that we are in any way representative of society. People didn’t vote Lib Dem because of their commitment to constitutional reform or Euro-enthusiasm. After 2010, they weren’t likely to be aware of the pupil premium, or even who was responsible for their tax cut. Unfair perhaps, but reality.

Now they’re making exactly the same mistake in obsessing about Brexit. Yes it’s a big issue but the most fervent Remainers are a small minority, usually living in their particular bubble within cosmopolitan cities and university towns. In other words, where Labour are completely dominant and where a Lib Dem vote will do nothing to stop the Tories from pursuing whatever version of Brexit they choose.

The wider public – mostly in Leave-voting constituencies – is simply never likely to engage with, let alone support, this Lib Dem strategy. Anti-Brexit is now becoming their entire brand. What happens after 2019, when it seems extremely likely we will leave? Regardless of the fallout and who is to blame – which will inevitably be as hotly disputed as it is now – the public will have moved on to the traditional bread and butter domestic issues like taxes, entitlements, health and education.

These are the issues, incidentally, that Labour’s manifesto very effectively addressed. I feel there’s a tendency amongst metropolitan-based commentators to over-rate Brexit as a reason for their good performance. Being the ‘Softer Brexit’ party surely doesn’t explain them spectacularly defying expectations in strong Leave seats like Hartlepool and Halifax.

As argued recently when advising a bet on Labour, I suspect hostility towards the Tories will grow throughout this parliament. That leaves few realistic options for ‘liberal centrists’. They either hold their nose and vote for either a left-wing, Corbynite Labour or what will likely be illiberal, nationalistic Conservatives. Or they create something new. As so many said before pretty much every election in living memory apart from 2005 and 2010, the Lib Dems will be seen as a wasted vote.

Three days out from the German Federal Election, Betfair markets could barely be offering a clearer signal towards the result. Despite short-odds punters getting burnt in a series of big polls around the globe recently, they are queueing up to back Angela Merkel’s CDU/CSU party at the minimum odds of 1.01 – equivalent to 99% chance – to win the Most Seats. Meanwhile Merkel is rated 98% likely to win a fourth term as Chancellor at odds of 1.02.

While those recent upsets should guard against complacency, there is literally no polling evidence to suggest one. The key difference with for example, the US and UK elections, is a proportional voting system that ensures smaller parties hold their own. As explained earlier this week, the big questions concern the nature of the Next Government.

Currently Germany has a ‘grand coalition’ between the two mainstream left and right parties and that remains the favourite, trading around 1.8 (56%). Were the centre-left to underperform, however, Merkel may look to her party’s historic partner the FDP and/or the Greens. A three-way ‘Jamaica’ coalition – named so after the party colours – is rated second likeliest, and was matched earlier today at 2.52 (40%).

However, the big international news story concerns a party that will not enter government, because the others refuse to deal with it. The far-Right AfD had slipped back from earlier peaks, in the wake of Merkel’s decision to invite nearly 1M refugees to stay, but current polls have them on course for a clear third place and significant representation in parliament.

It is good to know there are still some timeless certainties in politics. The Conservative Party will be split over Europe. The media will be obsessed with leadership challenge rumours and Boris Johnson will be doing anything within his power to generate publicity for himself.

Ever since the Foreign Secretary dropped his 4,000 word Brexit article last Friday, all other issues have been relegated to a back seat. Even yesterday’s implication of a nuclear war only momentarily halted the speculation. Was this a coup attempt? Will Johnson challenge Theresa May for the leadership? Will he be sacked? Will they clash at the UN? Will he resign if her speech doesn’t meet his demands?

The answer, I suspect, is none of the above. Instead it was a cunning PR move with profound implications for the wide-open race to succeed May. The actual substance of Brexit is only secondary. All that remains subject to change. Besides, as we know from his two articles backing either side of the referendum ahead of the vote last year, Boris likes to hedge his bets.

Johnson now claims to be mystified by quit rumours

As things stand, Johnson remains part of a government that is a “nest of singing birds”. Yet ‘friends‘ are leaking to serious newspapers that he could quit by the weekend if he doesn’t like May’s speech. That he ‘could not live with the version of Brexit under consideration.” On the other hand, this morning’s Times says he’s staying and Bloomberg report him to be ‘mystified’ by the speculation.

So far as specific detail is concerned, these ‘versions’ of Brexit are merely speculation, at least until May delivers her speech, let alone agreement actually reached with the EU. Clearly, differences concern the length and cost of a transitional deal after Brexit, with reports suggesting she is leaning towards a Switzerland-style deal. The harder Brexit group – now apparently led by Johnson – prefer a looser arrangement.

I suspect that by next week these facts could have changed and few will remember the details. Brexit will remain an incredibly complex, controversial process, to be driven by developments that few, including the chief participants, can be expected to foresee.

There will be no imminent leadership challenge. Nobody else wants May’s job until we have actually left the EU. Why risk being blamed for the fallout? Be sure, critics will persistently portray everything as a disaster. Afterwards, being the PM of ‘newly independent’ Britain becomes a great gig, full of opportunity. The current drama is all about positioning for that contest.

For yet another illustration of how the political landscape and betting sentiment is constantly changing fast, check out the odds for next Sunday’s German Federal Election.

Back at the beginning of 2017, with the world still in shock following Brexit and Donald Trump’s election, many believed that mainstream Europe and most dramatically Germany could also fall under the spell of the Alt-Right. Geert Wilders’ PVV were heavily odds-on to win the Dutch election, Marine Le Pen a strong second favourite in France and the AfD’s Frauke Petry trading in single figures to be the Next German Chancellor.

Even if that last earthquake was still a relative longshot, punters believed Angela Merkel was under serious pressure, trading around even money for a fourth term. One week out, she is rated almost certain at odds of just 1.05, equivalent to a 95% likelihood. Her CDU/CSU party are a 1.01 (99%) chance to win Most Seats.

Therefore to find a bet with any sort of meaningful returns, we either need to back an upset – for which there is literally no indication – or focus on speciality markets. In addition to the projected vote share of the main parties, the most interesting involves the make-up of the Next Government, which will almost certainly be a coalition.

Currently Germany is governed by a grand coalition that will feel alien to political observers in the English-speaking world. Merkel’s centre-right party share power with the centre-left SPD, led by Martin Schulz. The equivalent of a Conservative-Labour pact in the UK or Republican-Democrat in the USA. Unimaginable, right?

Yet not only has that arrangement survived the full term but it is hot favourite to carry on into the next Parliament, trading at odds of just 1.6 (63%). For my money, that is well worth opposing.

After 18 months of relentless political drama, generating the biggest ever betting markets in our medium, the summer has felt slightly weird. Sure, there are ongoing Brexit negotiations, rumours of Tory leadership bids and daily Donald Trump developments but, on the political betting front, it has been relatively quiet.

That’s because long-term markets will always struggle to compete with those producing imminent results. While reluctance to tie up money for a long or undefined period is understandable, it can be something of a misnomer. For if you play a popular market such as Trump Exit Date, liquidity is consistently strong enough to enable cashing out whenever you choose. To secure a profit, one merely needs to correctly predict the short-term trajectory.

In UK politics, the best market in that regard concerns which party wins the Most Seats at the next General Election. Though scheduled for 2022, as we saw earlier this year it could be called at any given moment up to that latest possible date.

However long it lasts, we can expect many ebbs and flows. During the last two full parliaments – 2005-2010 and 2010-2015 – the odds about both Labour and Conservatives fluctuated wildly, with both trading heavily odds-on. So here’s my first of what will doubtless be many trades during the parliament – back Labour at 2.1, for the following five reasons.

1 – Labour have been ahead in the polls since the election

The dramatic polling surge that saw Labour deny the Tories another majority actually arrived slightly too late. Another week and they would likely have fared slightly better, particularly in Scotland. What was a 20% deficit when the campaign started became less than 3% by June 7th, and has since become a consistent, albeit small lead.

They have led 17 of 20 polls since the election, recording less than 42% only twice. That suggests a pretty solid bank of support – unlikely to disintegrate any time soon. As Max Liu mentioned yesterday, local election results are also very promising.

For several weeks – roughly since the Charlottesville riots – the likelihood of Donald Trump failing to last a full term as President has consistently traded above 50% on Betfair markets. Reflecting our polarised times, in which anyone can create their own news bubble aligned with their politics, there is no shortage of confidence on either side of the bet. Over £50,000 was matched at [1.8] (56%) before a slight rally this weekend.

So where are we in this unprecedented saga? As ever during the Trump era, the challenge is staying focused on the main issue. The last two years have been a never-ending media circus which all news outlets – liberal or conservative, real or fake – have found impossible to ignore. Nowadays it isn’t just crazy tweets, wild speeches or chaotic press conferences. The agenda is also driven by cataclysmic events like Hurricane Harvey or North Korean missile tests.

While such issues may influence public perceptions of Trump, they are unlikely to end his presidency. He won’t be impeached over foreign policy, insulting people or lying on Twitter. Rather, his fate will be determined by Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and, on that front, significant developments are emerging on a daily basis. There isn’t anywhere near enough space to discuss them all here, but this exhaustive timeline from former White House Press Secretary Bill Moyers covers the subject well.

Three issues are particularly noteworthy. First, the trail of revelations from e-mails that Trump was lobbying to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, even during the campaign. Note this killer line to Trump’s lawyer from long-term business associate Felix Sater “Our boy can become POTUS and we can engineer it. I will get Putin on this programme and we will get the Donald elected.”

After Corbyn, Trump, Brexit, Macron and Theresa May’s lost majority, get set for the next improbable political gamble at massive odds. ‘Any Other Party’ besides the Conservatives, Labour or Lib Dems to win the next UK General Election is currently available to back around [120.0]. Win or lose, expect it to shorten.

While the market assumes the dramatic reversion to two-party politics at the election will continue, with both Conservatives and Labour trading around even money, it does not account for the creation of a new, mainstream party. Regardless of it’s eventual viability, we are about to see one that at least grabs a large slice of the news agenda.

New anti-Brexit party set to launch in September

We’ve heard much talk of a new party since Jeremy Corbyn became Labour leader, as a new home for party rebels vehemently opposed to his agenda. Implausibly, Tony Blair was even mooted as a potential leader. The driving force now, however, is an ex-Tory.

James Chapman, a former Daily Mail political editor, was previously Chief of Staff to Brexit Secretary David Davis. Having resigned earlier this summer, Chapman now says the party has been taken over by extremists pushing a ‘catastrophic’ Hard Brexit that would ensure perpetual defeat.

Piece by piece, the British Election Study is revealing the explanations behind our earthquake election, from the profile and churn of voters since 2015 to the issues that most concerned them. These most authoritative findings will be pored over by every party strategist and shape the way they respond to, or spin, policies such as Brexit.

Of arguably equal importance is the information war – the perennial battle to prioritise and emphasise particular issues and perspectives. To shape the political conversation in households, workplaces, pubs on a daily basis, rather than just a short-term election campaign. On this score, the 2017 election may mark a radical turning point in UK political history.

It is impossible to accurately measure the effect of media coverage, not least because few of us would acknowledge being susceptible to propaganda. Politicians, however, have long been painfully aware of press and TV influence, and the need to manage the news cycle. Labour in particular have seen one leader after another destroyed by Tory-supporting tabloids. Fear of it runs deep in their psyche and partly explains why so many MPs were adamant Jeremy Corbyn would lead them to disaster.

However despite the most relentlessly hostile coverage ever endured by a party leader, Corbyn thrived. Whereas past enemies of The Sun were branded early – remember ‘Red Ed’, the lightweight puppet of the unions, who stabbed his brother in the back? – and never recovered, this Labour leader’s approval ratings soared during the campaign.

That must partly be due to his TV performances but vast numbers of people weren’t watching the debates or political shows, let alone reading newspapers. Corbyn’s unlikely Labour leadership bid started on and was fueled by social media – in direct opposition to a hostile mainstream. His supporters are way ahead of the rest on these platforms, as his opponents just discovered to shocking effect.

After two years of the unlikeliest front-line political candidate in history repeatedly defying conventional wisdom, expert opinion and betting markets, it is tempting to tire of asking the question. Nevertheless it may be more pertinent than ever. The Trump Impeachment Saga is escalating.

In the wake of the latest revelations in the Trump Russia scandal, any hope of it subsiding has gone. The acknowledgement that Donald Trump Jnr, Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort did attend a meeting with Russian operatives offering damaging information on Hillary Clinton feels like a gamechanger.

No longer can this story be dismissed by the president and his allies as ‘fake news’, a ‘witch-hunt’ or Democrat excuse for election defeat. At the very least, it is firm evidence of a willingness to collude with a hostile foreign power and exposure of repetitive lies from Team Trump. Taken alongside stacks of circumstantial evidence which in itself demands a long, thorough investigation, it is anything but the ‘Nothing Burger’ earlier claimed.

The news is likely to worsen for the President as the trail of connections and events are explored further. As we saw with Clinton’s Benghazi and e-mail scandals, investigations take years as journalists and opponents pore over every small detail. Those investigations – which ultimately yielded no charges – nevertheless destroyed Clinton’s reputation, yet here’s how the former editor of Politico compares it to the relatively little we know of Trump Jnr’s communications.

We've read tens of thousands of Hillary's emails; FBI spent a year investigating too. Not a single speck as troubling as Don Jr's one email.

The son, however, is a minor player compared to the son-in-law. Kushner is arguably the President’s closest adviser and his actions are being scrutinised to what could be ruinous effect.

Kushner has already been forced to amend the list of foreign contacts on his security application – adding over 100 names. Inevitably, Democrats are calling for his security clearance to be at least reviewed, if not revoked. They are not alone – here’s George W Bush’s ethics lawyer’s take.

Jared Kushner's security clearance should be revoked. If not, we should just throw in the towel and give one to Vladimir Putin himself

Furthermore the investigation into precisely how Russia interfered with the election will place Kushner central stage. The principal claim is that, using a sophisticated network of bots to make stories go viral, hacked information and fake news such as Pizzagate were spread to damage Clinton. Having spent 2016 literally glued to the campaign on social media, I am certain that happened – regardless of who was responsible.

As recently as 2014, political betting was arguably the most reliable market for favourite-backers. Suddenly it’s become a haven for historic upsets. Anyone who thought 2016 was a freak year got a rude awakening last month. Based on their respective positions at the start of each campaign, Labour denying a Conservative majority was a bigger upset than either Brexit or Donald Trump’s defeat of Hillary Clinton.

Market after market was turned on it’s head. The reason, of course, is that expert opinion, narrative and therefore markets are driven by conventional wisdom – which breaks down during changing times. So what is changing and what lessons can we learn going forward?

The ‘late swing towards the status quo’ theory is bust

It used to be a given that governments would recover late in the campaign, as voters stuck with ‘the devil they know’. It sounds logical and the evidence stacked up. The theory applied to every Conservative win between 1983 and 1992, the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum and when the last three incumbent US presidents won a second term. It was probably a factor behind David Cameron’s surprise majority in 2015.

After a year of earthquake election results, the theory no longer inspires confidence. We will never know whether there was a late swing to the status quo in the EU referendum – as implied by the polls – because it is quite possible that the polls were always understating Leave due to differential turnout.

However the theory certainly fell down with Trump, as undecided voters broke decidedly for the outsider candidate and that phenomenon very much seems to apply to Jeremy Corbyn. While it was no great surprise to see a pro-Labour swing mid-campaign, their late momentum was unprecedented in living memory. Only one poll during the entire campaign predicted they would get 41%. Indeed, their 40-45% vote share was matched well above 200 to 1 on the Betfair exchange!

Whichever way one looks at it, Theresa May’s days as Prime Minister are numbered. Perhaps it will be soon, as furious Tory MPs blame her for the shocking election result. Perhaps she can survive for a few years, restoring her reputation by skilfully managing an impossibly split Commons and successfully negotiating Brexit. But few ever saw her as a long-term leader and the general consensus is that she will never lead the Conservatives into another election.

That the race to succeed her is effectively underway should be music to the ears of political bettors – Tory leadership contests have a history of drama and big upsets. How it turns out will depend on a variety of known unknowns – the timing of it, the state of Brexit negotiations, the positions of each candidate on that fundamental question and their ability to adapt their stance to fast-changing circumstances.

During this unpredictable era, any number of alternatives and little-known outsiders could yet come into the argument. For now, though, let’s focus on the five market principals, all of whom are trading below 20.0.

The circumstances behind that withdrawal are important. His colleagues simply don’t (or at least didn’t) regard him as heavyweight enough for such a demanding job. Arch-Brexit ally Michael Gove – apparently after talks with Rupert Murdoch and Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre – initiated a brutally effective political assassination, leaving Boris no option but to withdraw.

If the markets are to believed, the uncertainty and speculation will soon be over. The Next Government is rated 92% likely to be a Conservative Minority with Theresa May a 94% chance to be Prime Minister of it. Whether, after five massive political betting upsets in the space of two years, you regard betting markets as a reliable predictor, is another matter.

Anyone who tells you they know even Britain’s immediate political future is delusional. We are in unchartered territory and everyone is still trying to make sense of last week’s result. However basic maths means it is hard to see any other eventuality than a minority Tory government. Between them, Labour and all other CON/DUP alternatives simply don’t have the numbers.

Yes, there are big problems with forging a DUP deal, as Sir John Major outlined yesterday. But this isn’t a coalition or anything resembling one. It is unlikely to compel either side to much beyond the short-term votes that will allow May to form a government. We should assume the Queens Speech vote will be passed next week and look ahead to the profound implications.

How long can this precarious arrangement last?

The short answer is not very long. At odds of 3.5, our market rates a Second Election in 2017 only 28% likely but we are bound to at least hear plenty of speculation. Any links with the DUP are a problem for liberal conservatives and there are plenty of policy disagreements between the parties anyway. This can only be a limited, short-term affair in response to a national crisis.

When Theresa May called this election seven weeks ago, the overwhelming consensus predicted a landslide victory. Any non-partisan voices suggesting Labour could put up a fight, let alone deny the Tories a majority, were extremely hard to find. Yet here we are on election eve and there are plenty of punters willing to stake sizeable amounts on precisely that, or even Jeremy Corbyn to become PM.

I am not among them. In fact, while the general narrative implies a dramatic turnaround, my positions haven’t changed much at all. I began by arguing that Labour’s resilience was being underestimated, and that the English anti-Tory vote had nowhere else to go. That initial bet on Over 177.5 seats has since shortened from 3.5 to 1.3. Given that my final prediction has them on 208, there’s no plan to cover. Here’s my complete predictions for the 632 seats in England, Scotland and Wales.

National polls are differing wildly but all agree the gap is narrowing. Regardless of their accuracy, that is good news for value-seekers. A problem with the early betting was that, given their enormous poll lead, constituency odds about the Conservatives were extremely prohibitive. That is no longer the case.

A crucial factor to remember in this election is that national swing has been declining in relevance for years. As the country re-aligns politically in the wake of two referenda and newer dividing lines, the key is to evaluate what is happening in each region, because the differences are stark.

Brexit demonstrated that the UK is becoming extremely divided between younger, metropolitan electorates and the rest. It is perfectly possible, for example, that Labour win big in London while losing seats nationally. That was precisely the case in 2015 and recent polls show them on 50% in the capital.

Likewise on the same night that they were obliterated across English council elections, Andy Burnham and Steve Rotheram won the Manchester and Liverpool Mayoralties by huge margins. Last week, with those trends in mind, I listed my best six pro-Labour constituency bets, based primarily on demographics and political trends. Naturally, the opposite trends apply when searching for the best Tory targets.

In their case, the most fertile territory are seats that voted heavily for Brexit. It has given Theresa May an opportunity to win lifelong Labour voters that none of her predecessors enjoyed. As UKIP unravel, their defectors now hold the balance of power in dozens of constituencies. The older and whiter the electorate, the better for the Tories.

The West Midlands local election results were nothing short of catastrophic for Labour, as UKIP supporters transferred en masse to the Tories. They’re not even standing in Northfield, so we must assume that the lion’s share of their 7106 voters will split for the Conservatives – almost three times the size of Richard Burden’s 2509 majority. This white working class seat has become the best Tory target in Birmingham and, after voting for Brexit, is set to turn blue for the first time since the 1980s.

Over the course of the campaign, this election has been likened to many from the past. Inevitably, comparisons were made with Margaret Thatcher, with the early and betting implying Theresa May would even improve on the Iron Lady’s 1983 personal best – a majority of 144. Even if the Tories underperformed, their 1987 majority of 102 was easily within range.

Much has changed. The current size of majority estimate is closer to Labour’s last victory in 2005, when Tony Blair won a working majority of 66, but well below his two previous landslides. Given earlier expectations, May would probably take it. For while the Tories remain heavy favourites to win, their lead has significantly narrowed. According to Yougov’s new model, rather than emulating the glory years of Thatcher, May is on course for a similarly inconclusive win to David Cameron in 2010.

However there is one gigantic obstacle to a hung parliament. Cameron was denied a majority in 2010 because the Lib Dems retained 57 seats – 46 in England. Five years later, that tally was reduced to just eight, following their controversial decision to join Cameron’s coalition. Having started out talking of tripling that number, with high hopes in at least a dozen CON-held marginals, even doubling it looks a very big ask now. Over 14.5 seats, for example, is rated only 25% likely.

Campaign weaknesses are well documented. Positioning themselves as the Remain Party alienated 52% of the population and, with the other 48% largely moving on from the referendum, it works in a handful of seats at best. Tim Farron hasn’t cut through. However rather than recent strategic effects, we need to look a lot further back to understand what is happening.

When it all began nearly two years ago, we all knew it would be entertaining. What we didn’t realize was that entertainment would ultimately trump politics, and the daily business of the leader of the free world would become the first global soap opera.

The plot-lines are better than anything the writers of House of Cards could dream up. A celebrity businessman sweeps to power against all odds, only to find himself under investigation from the FBI amidst allegations of being a ‘Manchurian Candidate’ sponsored by a hostile foreign power, working alongside a fugitive hacker to fix the election.

Add in shadowy intelligence figures talk of blackmail involving recordings of hotel encounters with prostitutes and you’ve got a saga even Frank Underwood wouldn’t be able to manage.

While all this unfolds, Trump’s supporters allege an equally dark conspiracy by corrupt forces in the ‘deep state’ and media.

At any given moment, a cast member of this political thriller is liable to be targeted by some branch of the government. Even Trump’s glamorous family are dragged through the mud. Every little move in this drama makes instant news via Twitter, dividing a global audience along furious, partisan lines.

One week from polling day, what exactly is the state of play? Pretty much whenever the same question was asked during the 2015 campaign, the same answer came forth – dead-heat. When it turned out to be completely wrong, pollsters that largely agreed on a daily basis were an easy scapegoat. That cannot be said about 2017!

In recent days, we have seen the Conservative poll lead range from 12% to 3%. Lest we forget, it was above 20% when the campaign started. Clearly, Jeremy Corbyn has thrived since, in stark contrast to Theresa May, but is he really now in close contention to become Prime Minister next week?

Corbyn’s chance fundamentally rests on turnout and the theory that his authentic voice and radical brand of Labourism is inspiring a new generation of previously apathetic voters. Labour’s best numbers are with pollsters who take voters at their word (Yougov), whereas the biggest Tory leads are with firms who weight according to previous low levels of youth turnout (ICM).

Who is right? Both anecdotal experience and the optics of this campaign suggest things have changed. It is unimaginable that Ed Miliband would have been cheered at a Libertines concert, or addressed thousands of youngsters on West Kirby beach. Corbyn’s offer to students is clearer and widely popular. It would be a surprise and frankly devastating for the Left if turnout among 18-24s remains below 50% (it was 44% last time).

However the most optimistic numbers are based on around 80%, which is simply unrealistic. The truth probably lies in the middle but we also should not assume the phenomenon is restricted to the youngest age group. UK politics is going through a historic, transformative period and many of the old certainties may be swept away.

Has Brexit sparked greater interest among British voters?

In the last three years, we’ve had referenda on Scottish independence and Brexit, with profound electoral effects. First the emphasis on nationalism altered the narrative in Conservative and SNP favour, leaving Labour with nothing to say as their Scottish base disintegrated and UKIP emerged as a gateway to the Right. Now the dust is settling, Brexit seems to have rejuvenated political debate in our country.

So you want to bet on Labour. You’ve seen their polls rise throughout their campaign and believe they have momentum. Jeremy Corbyn has easily surpassed low media expectations, while Theresa May’s ‘strong and stable’ brand has nosedived during the campaign. Moreover, you’ve seen with Brexit and Donald Trump that the media and long-range betting market trends are becoming less reliable nowadays. Backing the underdog makes sense!

Here’s the problem. For all Labour’s progress, they are still highly unlikely to win more seats than, or even prevent the Conservatives winning a majority. As explained on Sunday when measuring the potential for their comeback to gather pace, Corbyn still has a mountain to climb. To become PM, he needs a polling and geographical miracle. To gain seats rather than lose them, as every indicator suggests Labour will, in the wake of UKIP’s demise.

The good news is that, in order to win money on Labour, you need not back them to win the election or even achieve anything special. I’ve studied the UK’s 650 parliamentary seats – 50 of which are analysed here in our Constituency Guide – to find the best value bets on each party. None of these require Labour gaining any seats off the Tories, let alone Corbyn becoming PM. In fact, it is perfectly possible that all of these bets win, despite the Conservatives winning a big majority.

The key to finding Labour’s most fruitful targets involves identifying the main opposition and measuring the demographics of the area. Seats where the Lib Dems are the main opposition are infinitely preferable to straight LAB/CON fights. Younger populations are preferable to older. In every seat, the scale of UKIP’s 2015 vote and therefore likely boost in the Tory share, is the key dynamic.

The fundamental dynamic behind narrowing polls barely involves Corbyn winning over Tory voters. Rather, Labour are hoovering up the progressive vote at the expense of smaller rivals, as the post-Brexit climate fosters a return to two-party politics. London voters are more progressive than ever and Labour are expected to rise across the capital. Apart from specific local and tactical situations, the Lib Dems feel like a wasted vote. Even accounting for the return of popular former MP Simon Hughes, there’s nothing to suggest they can overturn a 4,459 majority.

As we enter the closing stretch, the time has come for those make-or-break TV moments, starting tonight with The Battle for Number Ten on Sky News. Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn will face a grilling from Jeremy Paxman and a studio audience.

Then on Wednesday, BBC host a seven-way debate. This will involve the leaders of five minor parties but not May or Corbyn. In their place, Amber Rudd will represent the Conservatives but the Labour rep is not yet confirmed.

Friday sees the big one, with May and Corbyn appearing on a Question Time special with a studio audience. Finally on Sunday, the minor parties get their chance in another QT special.

Can Theresa May handle scrutiny?

The campaign to date should have taught, or reminded, the Conservative Party that success can breed complacency. Two years of ineffective opposition, aided by a compliant media, enabled them to believe a stress-free, huge majority was theirs for the taking. Just swerve any risky debates, repeat a few prepared lines about strong and stable leadership and the electorate’s hostility to Jeremy Corbyn would ensure a historic victory.

Politics rarely works like that, as Theresa May is finding out. After an uninspiring campaign, spectacularly botched manifesto and evasive interviews, the shine is coming off. Suddenly, the PM’s image as a competent pragmatist – distinct from her ideological Tory colleagues – is disintegrating. She is a few bad media moments from being rebranded as one of those ‘nasty Tories’ (a term she invented).

More damagingly, confidence from within her own party could easily drain away – Tory MPs are not known for tolerating failure. May failed miserably against Andrew Neil’s grilling last week and is certain to come under pressure from Jeremy Paxman tonight. Having to directly face voters in studio audiences could be very uncomfortable if meaningful answers are not forthcoming. Given that they haven’t been to date, Tories are entitled to worry.

Can Corbyn muster a credible response to terrorism?

The PM’s saving grace, of course, is the opposition. Corbyn may be surpassing expectations during this campaign but the fundamental weaknesses remain. The Manchester attack has moved terrorism centre stage and it is simply impossible to see how it doesn’t damage him. The weekend focus on his past IRA comments was predictable, but may have only reinforced the hostility from those who would never support him anyway. Perceptions of that conflict and peace process have changed over a long period.

It remains a longshot, but in 12 days time the political prediction industry could be in meltdown. Donald Trump may have produced the biggest upset of all-time but even that shock would pale into insignificance compared to Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister. Three weeks ago that eventuality was rated less than 3% likely on our market but this morning Corbyn’s odds are down to 10.0 or 10% – around the same that were available about Trump on election night.

Labour’s polling improvement has been rapid and remarkable by recent campaign standards. At the start, they were regularly 20% behind. In two of today’s five polls, the deficit is no more than 7% – the average is 10%. Equally, Corbyn has made significant inroads into a huge deficit with Theresa May in both approval and best PM ratings.

Labour continue to improve across Betfair markets

Naturally, the betting impact has been significant, particularly on side markets. For example Labour Vote Percentage has been transformed. From a peak of 12.5, 30.01-35% is now rated five times likelier at 2.5, while 35.01%-40% has shortened from 100.0 to just 4.0. Their odds on winning Over 177.5 Seats – advised earlier at 3.5 – is now a decent shade of odds-on at 1.7.

Such minor targets, of course, remain well short of success – 178 seats would represent a net loss of 54. In order to win Most Seats, they must overhaul a 99 seat deficit. Psephologists predict that Labour would need a lead of nearly 4% to be the largest party and over 12% for an Overall Majority.

Nevertheless at this rate of improvement, Labour at least retain realistic hope of a hung parliament. Narrowing the gap to 4% would probably achieve that and there’s no question they are winning the campaign. As predicted, their manifesto provided a big boost and Corbyn has defied low expectations. Entering the closing stretch, everything is still to play for.

Arguably the very best betting value in this election is to be found in the constituency betting. The UK is in the middle of a dramatic realignment in terms of party affiliation, with significant regional and demographic variations.

I’ve selected 50 of the most interesting and competitive races, analysing each and making a prediction. Throughout the campaign, I’m tweeting election updates via @BetfairExchange so, if any of these predictions change, I will alert via Twitter. Likewise if you want to discuss any other constituencies, feel free to ask me on there, or message me @paulmotty.

Back at the start of this election campaign, I mooted the idea that the enormous Tory poll leads were unrealistic – a peak moment of Theresa May’s long honeymoon with the voters. After a week of manifesto chaos and sliding poll numbers, it is definitely over. Suddenly commentators are even likening her inept campaigning skills to Gordon Brown. Ouch!

The <strong>dementia tax</strong> and subsequent humiliating u-turn is unlikely to prevent her returning to Downing Street but, along with other manifesto mis-steps discussed on Friday, it has very much taken the shine off. Once journalists and opponents sense weakness, they attack in herds. It is often forgotten that Brown was once ‘Prudence’, the ‘Iron Chancellor’, even the ‘Father of the Nation’. It took about a month of relatively banal mistakes for the reputation he’d built over a decade to disintegrate. The current PM may be a couple more bad interviews – Question Time next week will be challenging – away from unravelling.

2) Huge majority expectations must be scaled back

The campaign has been transformed and, with it, expectations. When they were 20% up, it made sense for the Tories to venture into deep Labour territory, in pursuit of an historic majority. Previously 150-174 was clear favourite in our Size of Conservative Majority market. Now it is 100-124 and on the current trajectory, even lower bands could soon become the most likely.

These recent polls will bring them back to earth, in realisation that lesser targets and even defences may require a lot more attention. As May keeps reminding us, a net loss of six seats would deny the Tories a majority. Suddenly, they can’t take that majority for granted. The odds about No Overall Majority have shortened from 36.0 to 10.0.

The Prime Minister should count her lucky stars that elections aren’t determined by manifestos. After dominating the last week’s news cycle, their effect threatens to change British politics. Labour have enjoyed their best week in years, while yesterday’s Tory launch seemed to achieve nothing besides generate criticism from both left and right.

Labour are surging across various Betfair markets

Although the overall result is rated near-certain, Betfair markets have certainly followed this trajectory. This morning they are down to [20.0] for Most Seats – less than half of the [50.0] available last Thursday.

More significantly, their odds to reach various targets have steadily fallen. For example, the 30.01-35% band in our Labour Vote Percentage market is now favourite at 2.76, rated 36% likely compared to just 8% earlier in the campaign. Though the shift has been less dramatic, the same trend can be seen across all the various seat total markets.

In doing so, they are merely following the polls which, while still one-sided, have definitely closed up. Yesterday’s surveys revealed Tory leads of 13 and 15% – the latter showing Labour’s highest vote share in months. It is hard not to conclude that the manifesto is partly responsible. Not only did it energise their base and earn praise from some of Jeremy Corbyn’s harshest critics, but it changed the subject.

The campaign has elevated issues and a narrative beyond Brexit

So long as the Westminster media were talking about Brexit, Labour were in an impossible situation. Opposing Brexit is electoral suicide – especially when most of your MPs represent Leave constituencies. They never have much to say about nationalism – hence why they were usurped by the SNP in Scotland – and this dynamic always favours the Tories. For months, domestic issues were squeezed from the media agenda. Labour’s opponents could easily define them in three ways – Remoaners, hopelessly divided and led by an unelectable extremist.

Everything about his unique campaign suggested the Trump presidency would not be a conventional one, and so it has proved. A mere 121 days in, Betfair punters are backing him to leave before the end of his first term.

Normally at this stage of the election cycle, betting on US politics would be focused on long-term markets like the next election or mid-terms. Yet overnight, while most Brits were sleeping, more than 5K was placed against Trump surviving a full-term. In our Trump Exit Date market, the odds about 2017 halved to 3.6. These stories take a few hours to filter through to British audiences so expect plenty more today.

While one must be wary when discussing Trump crises – given that so many have failed to halt his progress or dent his support – the row regarding his firing of FBI Director James Comey has dramatically escalated the scandal. Whereas there was previously only dubious, circumstantial reason to call for impeachment, Trump’s pursuers now believe they have ample material and more seems to be emerging on a daily basis.

For the benefit of younger readers, to whom Michael Portillo is a charming, urbane character with a penchance for trains, this title requires explanation. It wasn’t always this way. 20 years ago, #sadmanonatrain was a toxic figure in a deeply unpopular Tory government. His 1997 defeat to Stephen Twigg was later voted the public’s third favourite TV moment of all-time.

Ever since, the term has become synonymous with famous candidates suffering humiliating defeat. 2015 was a bumper year. In Scotland the ejection of Labour bigwigs Jim Murphy and Douglas Alexander caused plenty of cheer but the headline moment was surely Ed Balls losing Morley and Outwood.

This is a game we can all play regardless of party affiliation. If Labour supporters felt sick at the sight of bankers in Canary Wharf cheering the latter, they could take a little solace from defeating the ‘Witch of Wirral’ Esther McVey. Any Lib Dem or UKIP haters were cheering all night. In choosing this year’s seven, we tried to cover the entire political spectrum but alas, UKIP had to be excluded as they don’t have any MPs to lose.

Alex Salmond

If this one comes off, there will be no competition for the headline moment. Loved, loathed and admired in equal measure, the former First Minister is a man about whom everyone has an opinion. With the SNP still riding high, the idea of defeat seems ridiculous but there has been some money on the Tories to win his Gordon constituency from third place. Salmond starts 36% up on them but is on the wrong side of the majority of his constituents on independence, and a massive regional swing to the Tories is expected.

Thursday was rather odd. One week on from historically bad local election results, with national polls pointing to a similar disaster on June 8th, Betfair punters moved Labour’s odds in a positive direction. Granted, that improvement was extremely marginal and doesn’t even begin to signal a change in the likely general election result, but the numbers are noteworthy. Their odds for Most Seats fell from 46.0 to 29.0 and for an Overall Majority from 190.0 to 46.0.

More significantly, by accident or design, Labour enjoyed a decent news cycle. For once, the central topic was not Corbyn’s hopelessness or unelectability. The leak of their manifesto dominated headlines and was the main talking point on both Newsnight and Question Time. This is priceless publicity – the document will probably get more attention this weekend than Ed Miliband’s managed to during the entire 2015 campaign.

Besides predictable derision from the Tories – using all their favourite lines of attack about unfunded promises, misplaced idealism and the 1970s – the reaction was pretty positive. Labour reps on both those set-piece shows fared well. Diane Abbott was nowhere to be seen.

Love it or hate it, the most radical Labour manifesto in living memory is a great talking point. The principles are clear and the policies – on the surface at least – are popular. 71% support banning zero hours contracts. 52% renationalising the railways. 49% the energy industry. Abolishing tuition fees seems certain to sweep the education vote. Nationalising bus services will have local appeal.

None of that is going to change the course of this election and propel Jeremy Corbyn to Number 10 – it is far too late to change entrenched opinions – but it could mark a turning point. It is precisely what the crisis-ridden party needs. The warm response from a broad range of progressives, including plenty who are normally hostile to the current Labour leadership, reminds them that unity is possible.

In the aftermath of electoral defeat, it is conventional for the main opposition to pick a new leader. Especially if the party goes backwards. That has been the case after every election since 1987, whether Conservative or Labour. The last to stay in post was Neil Kinnock, uncontroversially given that his efforts had just yielded 20 gains.

In keeping with our unpredictable times, that obvious development is no certainty this time and nor is a unifying process. Do not assume their expected massive defeat will make Labour come to it’s senses. Their ruinous civil war may be about to become a suicide pact, with two combatants from their divisive 2013 contest representing very different visions for the party’s future.

Yvette Cooper now favourite to succeed Corbyn

The plan of the mass of Labour MPs is becoming obvious – unite around Yvette Cooper. Sparked, apparently, by one good question at PMQs after the election was called, there has been a massive gamble on the former Work and Pensions Secretary. From around 34.0 a month ago, Cooper is now the clear favourite to succeed Corbyn as Next Labour Leader at 5.1.

On the BBC’s Sunday Politics, the journalist Isabel Oakeshott said she understood the plan was for a coronation, thus enabling MPs to swerve a contest under the rules that led to Corbyn. Oakeshott is very well connected – a member of the Chipping Norton Set, no less – and is probably repeating the direct words of Labour sources. The story also makes perfect sense as Cooper is definitely one of the party’s heavyweights and very popular among MPs.

Even before Thursday’s local elections, few could honestly envisage anything other than a Conservative majority. After confirmation of their 558 gains – a remarkable tally for a party governing alone – the only realistic question involves the scale. The new favourite on Betfair’s Size of Conservative Majority market is 150-174 and they’ve been backed down to around even money to reach 400 seats.

Either target would be a post-WW2 record for a Tory government – beating Margaret Thatcher’s 397 seats from 1983. However these market trends differ significantly from much of the early analysis. Sky News projected a majority of just 48 from these results and the sainted John Curtice talked of even slightly lower.

Why the difference? Bettors are predicting that the current opinion polls showing the Tories getting close to 50% are a superior guide than the 38% they were projected to have won on Thursday. The question in a General Election is different – who runs the country, not who runs the council – and turnout much higher. Normally one would expect the opposition to be gaining hundreds of seats at this stage. Labour losing 320 is an ominous signal and they would secretly be delighted with a Tory majority under 50.

2) UKIP’s rise and fall fundamentally realigned politics

The extreme disparity in popularity and perceived leadership qualities between May and Corbyn are well-known but the fundamental reason for current trends is the demise of UKIP – who lost all but one of their 115 council seats. The right-wing insurgency seems to have run it’s course now their core goal of leaving the EU has been delivered. Their votes mostly switched to the Tories. If that trend is repeated on June 8th, it will hand them dozens of previously safe Labour seats.

UKIP changed the argument, the Conservative Party and consequently the nature of constituency battles across England. There’s been much talk of UKIP stealing Labour votes in the North and Midlands but, in fact, they took more from the Tories and hoovered up anti-Labour sentiment in uncompetitive constituencies that their rivals had given up on. May’s transformation into a hard Brexiteer won back many a Eurosceptic ex-Tory and made her party relevant again in seats they hadn’t been since the 1980s.

If media narrative is the key to political success, Theresa May just took another big step towards a majority of historic size. Thursday’s speech outside Downing Street, framing this election as her pluckily defending the nation against Jean Claude Juncker and the Brussels bureaucrats, was exactly what the Tory tabloids wanted to hear. It will tap directly into the worldview of the Brexit voters she needs to re-align UK politics in the Tories’ favour.

The timing couldn’t be better with voters in England, Scotland and Wales going to the polls today (May 4) for local elections. According to psephologists Rallings and Thrasher, determining the winners and losers will be straightforward. They predict the Tories to gain 115 seats, while Labour lose 75. For the opposition to be losing seats to the governing party, especially at this late stage, is catastrophic.

However all those numbers will do is re-inforce the consensus. Terrible news for Labour and Jeremy Corbyn, but when hasn’t that been the case? Likewise it is obvious that UKIP are disintegrating, with their supporters transferring to the Tories en masse. The more interesting story – with profound implications for June 8th – concerns the minor parties. 85 projected Lib Dem gains is not far behind the Tories, while UKIP losing 105 is more than Labour.

One reason why virtually nobody predicted a Tory majority in 2015 was that we were all trying to make sense of a unique period in UK political history – in which the old party system was breaking down and voters were in flux like never before. Two years on we are still trying to understand it and winning money on this election necessarily involves predicting the behaviour of these same voters.

Two critical things happened after 2010. In joining the Tories in coalition, the Lib Dems burned their bridges with over half their voters. Throughout the parliament, they were punished repeatedly in local elections and obliterated at the General Election, losing 49 out of 57 seats. On the other side of the spectrum, perhaps as a partial response to the Tories leading a more liberal government, UKIP rose from nowhere.

Ever since Theresa May stunned us all by announcing this snap election, political bettors have broadly fallen into two camps. Those of us who regard the Conservatives – especially for Most Seats – as a stone-cold certainty. The best chance to earn 5% or so interest on your money over a few weeks. As my tweet from that day shows, I am firmly in that camp.

On the other, contrarians legitimately point to the massive shocks of 2016. Almost the entire commentariat gave Donald Trump no chance of winning the Republican nomination, let alone the presidency. Brexit blew away the longstanding record of Betfair favourites winning every major election. If those two could land bigger than ten to one upsets on polling day, surely it is too early to dismiss Jeremy Corbyn?

These contrarians may, briefly at least, have had a spring in their step after some much improved polls for Labour over the weekend. Sure, four surveys showing Tory leads between 11 and 17% can hardly be said to place the result in doubt. But equally, any double-digit swing in the space of a week is worthy of comment. It has profound implications for our range of side markets – whether that be the betting in marginal constituencies, seat totals or Size Of Conservative Majority. If their lead fell to six or seven, even winning an Overall Majority at all would be in doubt.

Such an extreme turnaround is not on my radar. The fundamentals are too strong. In the two years since Labour lost by 7%, just about every dynamic has worked against them. Post Brexit, UKIP are collapsing, to the Tories’ overwhelming benefit. On the big question – who do you trust to lead the Brexit negotiations? – there is no contest. Jeremy Corbyn is historically unpopular, compared to the most popular Tory leader in living memory.

Nevertheless, they provide a timely reminder that polls are merely snapshots of opinion, which can change fast. Much can happen over the next five weeks during a fevered campaign. Even if Labour winning never even becomes realistic, there is much to play for, particularly in 100 or so marginal constituencies.

Right now, it feels like the calm before the storm. Neither Tory or Labour manifesto has been released yet, making for tedious TV as interviewers deliberately ask questions to which they already know an answer will not be forthcoming. May and her team’s relentless repetition of the ‘strong, stable leadership’ mantra is already being widely mocked.

England is not Scotland. Apologies for stating the bleeding obvious but the differences should not be forgotten when trying to weigh up the scale of disaster facing Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party.

We know the similarities and dire narrative. In Scotland, amidst a surge of nationalism in the wake of their independence referendum, Labour were swept away. Losing all but one of their Scottish MPs, the party of the Scottish working-class was displaced by the SNP. Now, the English will do the same to a divided party who were on the wrong side of the EU referendum. As in Greece, Spain, Holland and France, the mainstream centre-left will be reduced to rubble.

While nobody is predicting they will be reduced to one MP, the betting signals increasingly point to an electoral massacre. Never mind any question of winning the election, it is now rated highly unlikely that they even get close to the disastrous 1983 result. Then, Labour won only 209 seats as Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives racked up a majority of 144. Now, the market gives them only a 25% chance of getting Over 177.5 Seats.

Almost all the seats projected to change hands would go to the Tories, and this is where the specifics of English politics are important. The right-wing brand and English nationalism of the Tories and UKIP are worlds apart from the SNP’s outlook. Nicola Sturgeon’s party are pro-immigration, anti-Brexit and effectively stole the clothes of the liberal-left, then wrapped them in a flag. With Labour declining and mute when it came to nationalism, transferring to the SNP was an easy call for their supporters.

British politics is definitely in the middle of a process of massive re-alignment, but we should not ignore historic truths. There has always been deep-rooted opposition towards the Tories, based on real political substance. In recent decades, they virtually disappeared from numerous major towns, cities and regions. In Labour’s heartlands in the North and Midlands – the core seats they are defending – the Tories presented no challenge. If an opposition was competitive, it was likelier to be UKIP.

Many of those Tory-free communities formed the backbone of the Brexit vote, but it requires a leap of faith to assume they will now suddenly elect a Tory when it would have been unimaginable just a year ago. Brexit may be big but it is not the sole issue that defines a person or an area’s politics. It is one thing for an ex-mining community to vote UKIP or for Brexit, but quite another to support the party that shut the mines.

During the 20th century, political scientists referred to UK Conservatives as the most successful political party in the Western world. Their secret was an ability to move with the times and adapt to a changing electorate. When a core policy became unpopular, they would drop it. While their rivals tore themselves apart over ideology, the Tories simply reinvented themselves when required.

Two decades ago, with the party split down the middle over EU membership and out of touch with modern, socially liberal norms, that narrative appeared dated. With spectacularly bad timing, Geoffrey Wheatcroft released his book in 2005, The Strange Death of Tory England, just as David Cameron was about to become leader.

Yesterday, when Theresa May shocked the nation by calling an early election, the overwhelming consensus was that the Tories are back in total control of British politics and on the verge of emulating their greatest victories of last century.

Once again, the key is their changed response to the issue that now transcends all others. The party that took the UK into the EU; that signed the Single European Act and Maastricht Treaties; whose PM led the campaign to stay in the EU and whose replacement was also a Remainer are now very much the Brexit Party. Perfect, for an election which will be dominated by that single topic.

While Labour immediately descended into confusion and civil war after the referendum, the Tories offered a clear message and competent candidate. No ifs, no buts, May would respect the result and push through Brexit. The reward seems certain to be a mandate for the new PM to pursue whatever Brexit she wants, thanks to an increased majority in Parliament.

The message from Betfair markets couldn’t be clearer. The Tories are 1.08 (93%) to win Most Seats to win another Overall Majority. While the former odds are prohibitive, this is actually a great way to make 8% profit minus commission in just six weeks. There is simply no rational argument to oppose them.

It isn’t everyday that one pities a man whose job is to head the FBI, but surely nobody could envy the political tightrope James Comey has walked these past 18 months and counting. In an ever more partisan environment where both sides seem intent on nothing less than the total destruction of their opponents, pleasing both conservatives and liberals is literally impossible. Especially when one side hopes, even expects, you to bring criminal charges about the opposition. Depending on the time of day, Comey shifts from hero to villain with either side.

Having first been elevated into global consciousness by the Clinton e-mail saga – and a late intervention that will be forever blamed for her defeat, Comey is now confronted with an even bigger scandal that could potentially destroy Donald Trump’s presidency. His and NSA Director Admiral Rogers’ testimony to the House Intelligence Committee on Monday was a classic piece of political theatre, from which there are inevitable ramifications.

The main takeaway headline was confirmation of an ongoing investigation into links between Russia and the Trump campaign, which begun last July. Another was a firm rejection of the current president’s claim that Trump Tower had been wiretapped on the orders of his predecessor. Perhaps most dramatically, the tweets Trump sent out whilst the hearing was in progress were almost immediately debunked by Rogers and Comey.

Regarding the bigger picture, while there is no clarification yet of any wrongdoing on Trump’s side, Comey confirmed what has felt obvious to many close observers of that remarkable campaign. That Russia sought to influence the result, to the detriment of Clinton, via state-sponsored propaganda, hacking the DNC and a sophisticated online smear campaign.

A bipartisan investigation or media coverage seems unimaginable

For Democrats, a stack of coincidences and circumstantial evidence point firmly to a conspiracy. For Republicans, the focus should be finding which federal employees are responsible for leaks. Inevitably, Comey was repeatedly forced to avoid commenting on precise, named allegations.

The coverage on CNN and Fox typically reflected those irreconcilable differences. A liberal watching the former will probably fancy taking odds around even money that Trump will fail to complete a full-term – due to impeachment, resignation or death. A conservative Fox viewer probably considers such punters to be clueless, just like the mugs that dismissed Trump’s chances last year.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past year, you will have heard about a political revolution sweeping the Western world. Brexit and the election of alt-Right hero Donald Trump were driven by the ‘silent majority’ rejecting mass immigration and a globalist agenda, imposed against their will by an out-of-touch political class. A terrified establishment – be it centrist politicians, financial markets or the mainstream media – are braced for a series of elections in 2017 that could ultimately destroy the EU.

The first of those elections arrives this week in the Netherlands, where anti-Islam, anti-EU populist Geert Wilders has usually topped opinion polls over the past 18 months. However, while Wilders’ PVV are expected to gain seats, Betfair markets strongly imply that the chance of him actually taking power is a long shot. In fact, I believe odds of 5.8 (17%) considerably over-state his chances of becoming Next Prime Minister.

The key point is that, while there are social and ideological parallels between these various populist, anti-establishment waves, the conditions of each national election are different. There are issues unique to each country and their party systems differ. So with Brexit, UK voters were dealing with a single issue that cut across party and ideological boundaries. That non-party question inspired people who never vote in conventional elections.

In the USA, Trump’s celebrity businessman appeal also inspired previous non-voters and transcended party lines. Again this was effectively a binary choice, between two unpopular candidates in a country deeply divided along party and ideological lines. A Conservative need not like or even agree with Trump to vote for him – winning the White House and Congress were more important. Had Republicans picked a more centrist candidate like John Kasich, they would probably have won a landslide.

The Netherlands could barely be more different. Here, up to 15 parties could win seats in the 150-strong parliament. To form a government, one needs 76 seats, and all the other main parties have vowed to not deal with Wilders. The highest polls have ever projected PVV to win was just 42. Their highest projection this year was 35 and in the past month, they have consistently slipped below 30. Even if his party wins the most seats, Wilders has effectively no chance of becoming PM.

We thought it could never happen again. That no political market could ever compare to the 2016 US election. One where rumours, scandal and media speculation regularly sparked the most dramatic market moves on people who weren’t even running. One where a main candidate’s participation was in doubt right up to the closing stages.

Yet with just over seven weeks until the first round of the French Presidential Election, this race is giving Trump/Clinton a run for it’s money. Indeed, we have just witnessed arguably the most sensational gamble in political betting history.

This time last year, the general consensus was that Alain Juppe would become the next president. The septuagenarian former Prime Minister was trading around [1.5], (equivalent to a 67% chance), even before his UMP party’s nomination process begun.

Then came the first earthquake, as Juppe was eliminated after another massive gamble on an outsider. Francois Fillon swept from odds around 200.0 to claim the nomination and duly traded down to 1.4 (71%) for the main prize. With his political career seemingly over, Juppe drifted on Betfair to the maximum odds of 1000.0, where he was matched for £420.

In the wake of last Thursday’s by-election double-header, the weekend political news cycle primarily concerned the future of Jeremy Corbyn. After losing Copeland after 80 years of Labour rule and holding ultra-safe Stoke-on-Trent Central on a diminished majority, no rational observer could deny the party’s grim mid-term position.

However if his internal enemies hoped these bad results might prompt a rethink among the leader’s circle – let alone kick-start plans for Corbyn to relinquish the leadership – they were swiftly disavowed. Corbyn remains adamant that he will lead the party through to the 2020 General Election and, rather than self-reflect, his allies placed the blame squarely on the media and Labour enemies plotting a ‘soft coup‘.

In short, Labour’s crisis has a long way to play out and divisions will likely harden. The two sides hold diametrically opposed views regarding last week’s performance, how they reached this parlous state and how to turn things around.

The leader’s defenders argue that Copeland – home to the nuclear industry, of which Corbyn is a long-term sceptic – was a unique case that does not reflect the party’s national challenge. They point to the comfortable victory in Stoke – labelled ‘Brexit Central’ and a prime UKIP target – as evidence that Labour’s core vote is resilient. Following Paul Nuttall’s humiliating defeat, any idea that Labour will be swept away by UKIP in the North and Midlands is for the birds.

Sure, Labour lost many once-loyal voters during the decade prior to Corbyn taking over, and it will inevitably take time to convince them that the party has returned to it’s socialist roots. But rather than getting with the new programme, MPs undermined Corbyn from day one, dividing the party and creating a terrible media narrative by their disloyalty.

For their part, Corbyn’s opponents claim these results and diabolical mid-term poll ratings simply prove they were right all along. That Corbyn and his far-left agenda are electoral suicide – toxic to the white working-class that once made up Labour’s voter base. They compare an 8K victory in the Tory-held marginal of Corby in 2012, to a 2K defeat in Copeland. Oppositions simply don’t lose mid-term by-elections and these numbers project a much worse result even than Ed Miliband’s dire 2015 performance.

A critical, changing feature of by-elections is that polls are few and far between nowadays. When we do hear about one, it tends to have been commissioned by a faction with an obvious agenda – such as the Labour Leave survey that suggested UKIP were on course to win Stoke easily.

Polls have their weaknesses, for sure, but they are one of the principal driving forces behind political betting markets. In their absence, punters are relying on analysis and the perennially unreliable ‘information’ from the ground.

As somebody whose method largely relies upon deep political analysis, weighing past and emerging trends in politics, I prefer it this way. Theoretically, angles should be easier to find, especially in an era when political parties are declining and voter choice is in flux.

Consider the two by-elections we’ve seen since Brexit. In Richmond Park, the Lib Dems performed remarkably in overturning a 23K majority and defying the odds. Strong support for Remain in the constituency was surely the reason, and that trend has been repeated by the Lib Dems in council elections across the country. Now I didn’t expect they would overturn such a huge majority, but big improvement was both logical and predictable.

Next, in Sleaford and North Hykeham, the Tories scored a massive win, defying historic tendencies for governments to underperform mid-term. The reverse Brexit effect was in play, with both Remain parties making no headway whatsoever. Here, I felt the Tories were one of the all-time great [1.1] chances, but dared not try and buy money at such short odds in light of recent results.

Surely Brexit will be the key dynamic once again. It is by far the main issue in British politics. One lesson we should have learned last year is that the average voter is often having an entirely different discussion to the minority who follow politics in detail. The two sides don’t even agree anymore about basic facts. In 2017 England, you will find a lot of cynicism about politics and few close followers of the daily Westminster scene. Yet everyone has a view about Brexit.

On that score, Labour look in real trouble in both of these Leave-voting seats. Their incoherent, divided position on Brexit means they are being squeezed on all sides. Add in a deeply unpopular leader, especially amongst the type of voter that make up the majority in Copeland, and meltdown seems very realistic.

Consider where Labour were at the same stage of the last parliament. In 2012, they claimed the Tory seat of Corby with an 8K majority. Whereas they were consistently ahead in national polls throughout the previous mid-term, now they trail by around 15 points nationally. Despite mid-term results like Corby, they went on to lose catastrophically in 2015 and were wiped out in Scotland. But things are markedly worse now.

Imagine this were a General Election. On current numbers, the Tories would surely be favourites to win Copeland, despite Labour holding it for 70 years. 2500 is a relatively small majority and this is a seat where nuclear is the big employer, and Jeremy Corbyn has been a longstanding critic of that industry.

Granted, Labour are proficient at getting their postal vote out and have a strong local candidate, perfect for their main campaign theme – fighting local NHS cuts. However I find it hard to see how they retain the same vote share as 2015 – unless there has been a sudden reversion from UKIP to Labour in light of Paul Nuttall’s car-crash campaign.

If it weren’t for Nuttall’s disasters, I would be on UKIP for Stoke. I lived there 15 years ago and felt then it was ripe for a far-right party. Again thinking back to a time when Labour was faring vastly better nationally, they nearly lost Heywood and Middleton to UKIP, despite the much smaller party focusing nearly all their efforts on winning a different seat (Rochester and Strood).

That was paramount in my mind when backing them at 2.0 but, as mentioned on Twitter, I bailed out with a very small loss when the new UKIP leader’s brand started to implode. It must also be noted that, at the time of Heywood and Middleton, UKIP and Nigel Farage were arguably at their peak relevance and popularity.

Update on Stoke by-election: Bailing out of earlier UKIP bet at 2.0 after Nuttall lie admission. Taking small loss by laying at 2.38.

The market suggests Labour will hold on but at 1.5, there are just too many questions to bet with confidence. Are the voters of ‘Brexit Central’ about to elect an ultra-Remainer? Will the massive swing from Lib Dem to Labour in 2015 hold up, or reverse as it has across England in other low turnout contests? Could UKIP have been far enough ahead to reduce the relevance of Nuttall? Indeed, do their supporters even care or will they dismiss the stories as fake news?

Ultimately, my prediction is that the Labour machine and postal vote will get above 30%, and that may just be enough with the vote split four ways. Here’s my best guess at tonight’s vote shares.

Phrases such as ‘must-win’ and ‘do-or-die’ have often been used to define the challenge facing parties in UK by-elections. Rarely, however, could such terms have legitimately applied to two different leaders. Yet one bad result on Thursday night could prove ruinous for either Jeremy Corbyn or Paul Nuttall.

It is hard to recall a night quite like it. Usually stand-alone, by-elections are often one-sided non-events and rarely have profound significance. Here we have two highly competitive contests on the same night, both of which will provide much-needed clarity about party politics and voter intention in the post-Brexit era. We even have a unique Copeland and Stoke By Election Double market.

Were it not for the referendum – even assuming Labour MPs Jamie Reed and Tristram Hunt had still triggered these contests by resigning mid-term – neither Copeland or Stoke would have attracted much attention. The Betfair market would point towards predictable defences – just as Labour managed in 17 of 18 mid-term defences since losing power in 2010.

Instead, the Copeland market strongly points towards the first gain by a governing party since 1981. The money has been relentless for the Conservatives, who were backed down to a low of 1.29, equivalent to a 77% likelihood, before settling around 1.4 (71%).

If the money is right and Labour lose a seat they’ve held for 70 years, it would surely deepen the crisis surrounding Corbyn’s leadership. Against a backdrop of appalling personal ratings, a double-digit national polling deficit and his small band of supportive MPs dwindling by the day, Corbyn is already trading around 1.4 (71%) to leave post before the next election, and 4.4 (22%) by the end of March. Defeat in either by-election could prove a tipping point.

The demographics and politics of the Cumbrian seat – older, whiter, pro-Brexit – do not bode well. This is precisely this type of voter that is alienated from Corbyn, and drawn closer towards Theresa May than any Tory leader this century. Perhaps most significantly, the nuclear industry is the main employer, making Corbyn’s longstanding ambivalence towards it a massive handicap.

Whatever one thinks of Brexit, Donald Trump and the wave of anti-establishment populism sweeping the Western world, we should all be able to agree that politics became a lot more interesting and unpredictable in 2016.

The combination of drama, unique characters and the touchstone issues in play helped justify predictions of becoming the biggest ever year for political betting. First the EU referendum, then the US Election, broke the all-time record for money traded, with nearly £200M matched on Betfair’s Next President market alone.

Just as these historic upsets rocked the assumptions of elites, pollsters and media pundits, they altered the narrative surrounding this growth industry.

Previously, betting markets had built a long reputation as an ultra-reliable indicator. National elections were always won by the favourite, with the market accurately reflecting the wisdom of crowds. Plus, there was usually a reversion among voters towards the status quo in the final days.

Famously, the formbook was ripped to shreds. Both Brexit and Trump were rated around 10-15% likely by betting markets on election night. Rather than reversion, both results represented a rejection of the status quo. Trump owed victory to a huge advantage among late deciders whom form followers would have put in the column of a safety first, qualified candidate like Hillary Clinton.

Yesterday, anticipating Clive Lewis’ resignation from Labour’s Shadow Cabinet, I advised a new bet on the Norwich South MP at 8/1, following on from much earlier advice at 25/1. Today’s article discusses his prospects and the wider Labour crisis.

New bet in light of looming Labour drama: Backed Clive Lewis 20 units @ 8-1 for next leader. Pressing up on earlier position.

When looking forward to the biggest political markets of 2017, I predicted the turmoil within the official UK opposition would present endless talking points and therefore betting opportunities. Less than six weeks in, the Jeremy Corbyn saga is already dominating front pages.

The Labour Party was already bracing itself for two extremely tricky by-election defences, both scheduled for a fortnight today. Any plan to present itself as a coherent, united force to the voters of Stoke and Copeland has already turned to dust, with Brexit tearing them apart.

After yet another front-bencher resigned – having refused to follow Corbyn’s ill-advised three-line whip supporting Article 50 – punters rushed to back the troubled Labour leader for an early exit. From 1.8 when tipped a fortnight ago (56%), Corbyn was backed down to 1.14 to leave post before the next general election. That equates to an 88% likelihood. He was even backed at 3.1 (32%) to be gone by the end of March.

Although these odds have since drifted to 1.35 (74%), the logic behind such a bet is obvious. Unless Theresa May engineers an early election – not a straightforward move nowadays, due to the Fixed Term Parliament Act – Corbyn would need to survive for another three years. This despite catastrophic personal and party ratings, languishing double-digits behind the Tories – compared to being ahead at the same stage of the last parliament.

Corbyn would need to survive with increasingly few allies. The special significance of last night’s resignation was that Shadow Business Secretary Clive Lewis was an ally who loyally supported Corbyn during last year’s attempted coup. The 45-year-old former soldier is often mooted as a potential replacement. Indeed, I’ve been advising bets on him since last July when available at odds of 26.0.

Fuelled no doubt by the drama of 2016 and Marine Le Pen’s plausible candidacy, the French election was already shaping up to be a much bigger betting heat than usual before the Penelopegate scandal broke. Now, as I wrote earlier this week, we are looking at a potential re-run of the US election drama.

In truth, I’ve come late to this party. Having devoted all my focus in 2016 to the US and UK, I missed out on two massive gambles – on Francois Fillon and Emmanuel Macron – and only started building a position last week, in response to Penelopegate. Though I didn’t advise specific bets or stakes, hopefully some of you have followed my lead on Twitter to make something from the significant market fluctuations.

Through trading those four positions, I’ve built a nice, green book but am not taking a definitive position on anybody. That will come in due course. Right now, I would say Macron is the likeliest winner but an unknown quantity at short odds, in a tight, tactical race doesn’t make much appeal. I don’t think Le Pen will win but feel certain she will be in the final two. Neither the Conservative or Socialist candidates can be written off.

Instead of taking that view yet, the best betting angle concerns Fillon and whether he can keep the nomination. The headlines and polling numbers have been diabolical for the UMP candidate ever since the scandal broke. The questions will not disappear and he may now be fatally branded as at best part of the entitled political class or, worse, corrupt. According to a poll today, 68% want him to withdraw, including 59% of elderly voters – his core constituency.

That cycle of negativity explains his market weakness, out to 8.0 (12%) from 1.8 (56%) a fortnight ago. It also explains why Juppe has shortened from 550 at the time of my tweet, to just 10.0. Neither signal, however, is necessarily a reliable indicator.

As we saw repeatedly last year in the US election, the market loves speculation about replacement candidates. Those of us who spent all year glued to that market will never forget the crazy fluctuations in the odds of Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Mike Pence and Paul Ryan. Yet so far as we know, neither Clinton or Trump were ever in real danger of being replaced.

So on that reckoning, Fillon may well be under-estimated. More to the point, the likelihood of Juppe is surely overstated. He has repeatedly said he’s not interested and would not necessarily be a better pick. It would be hard to sell an elderly, defeated primary rival, with corruption allegations in his own background, replace a candidate over an unproven corruption scandal.

The same goes for Nicolas Sarkozy, who has shortened from 300 to around 40.0. The former president is deeply unpopular and could well fare even worse than a damaged Fillon. Surely it would be better to pick a fresh face?

I suspect the market is simply overstating the most recognisable UMP alternatives. If the party were to adopt this drastic course of action, there would surely be plausible alternatives. Yet the names being mentioned in the press are all much bigger than Juppe and Sarkozy.

Today’s survey listed five alternative candidates, whose current odds range from 100.0 to 1000.0. The names are consistent with other media speculation – see this RTL piece for example.

If as expected, the speculation persists over the next week or so, I reckon we’ll see a significant move on at least one of the following quintet – Francois Baroin, Xavier Bertrand, Laurent Wauquiez, Gerard Larcher and Valerie Pecresse.

In some cases, this may be pure speculation but their comments and press are worth following. Wauquiez, for example, gave a classic Frank Underwood response yesterday, acknowledging ‘doubts’ while pledging support. Larcher has made some notable criticisms too.

Due to the lack of liquidity on outsiders, I’m not going to advise specific stakes and prices but odds above 100 are worth considering on each of them. As always, feel free to ask any questions via Twitter.

Once upon a time, political betting was just about the most predictable game on earth. National elections were won by the favourite. Period. Then along came 2016 and, like just about all things political, all of our assumptions and long-established trends became redundant.

With Brexit and Donald Trump fresh in the memory, political bettors seem more willing than ever to take on a short-odds favourite. And in the biggest market since the Trump miracle, that strategy is paying off handsomely.

We’d already seen plenty of drama in the French election last year, when surprising candidates came through the primary process. Long-term favourite Alain Juppe traded down to 1.45 (69%) to become Next President, only to fall at the first hurdle by failing to win his party’s nomination. The man who seemed his principal rival – former President Nicolas Sarkozy – also traded at odds-on before a humiliating primary defeat.

After becoming the UMP candidate Francois Fillon’s odds collapsed from 190.0 to a low of 1.4, equivalent to a 71% chance of winning May’s presidential election. Short-odds backers, however, are already braced to take another big-hit.

With Fillon’s candidacy now mired in a corruption scandal known as Penelopegate, his odds are in freefall. From 1.83 (55%) a week ago, tonight’s latest quote is just 4.0 (25%), with Emmanuel Macron taking over at the head of the market.

The news just doesn’t get any better for Jeremy Corbyn. Facing yet another rebellion from his MPs, this time over the Article 50 vote, today’s Yougov poll puts Labour 16% behind the Tories. Now, the market signals for next month’s two by-elections project historic defeats that would plunge his troubled reign into a potentially terminal crisis.

In Copeland, the Conservatives remain firm 1.63 favourites, despite Labour holding the Cumbrian seat since the 1930s. At 3.0, Betfair punters give them just a 33% chance of retaining it.

Defeat there will be a disaster, though not necessarily terminal for Corbyn, because Labour are already expected to lose what was already a fairly tight seat. This relatively old, white, Brexit-supporting electorate, in an area dominated by the nuclear industry, is precisely the type that feels alienated from ‘metropolitan Labour’ and in particular the leader’s socially liberal, left-wing, anti-Trident platform.

To lose a seat like Stoke, on the other hand, would confirm that Labour are genuinely facing an existential crisis. Theresa May’s party aren’t a problem here and have reportedly given up, leaving the path clear for UKIP to sweep through in another heavily pro-Brexit seat.

1) Unite the American public behind his controversial presidency or at least gain legitimacy

While there has rarely if ever been a candidate who so starkly divided opinion, there are a couple of adjectives we can all agree upon. Donald Trump is unique on both a personal and political level and pretty much everything since he declared his run for the presidency has been unprecedented. Both terms apply to today’s inauguration and the many challenges that lie ahead.

There has certainly never been a less popular incoming president, nor an inauguration so overshadowed by protest. In stark contrast to the mood music of President Obama’s signing in eight years ago, the rest of the world will see a bitterly divided USA and a new leader with very little legitimacy.

Historically unpopular throughout, losing the popular vote was never going to help Trump win over his critics and the lingering belief that his victory was a result of Russian interference has reinforced that sense of illegitimacy. A chaotic transition process and period, characterised by controversial appointments, a running war with the media and yet more bizarre tweets, has made matters worse.

Apart from his victory speech, Trump has made very little attempt to be magnanimous or reach out to opponents. Doing so in today’s acceptance speech is absolutely imperative. Gaining power merely requires winning more votes than your opponent. Wielding it effectively demands taking people with you. Without building at least a degree of consensus and unity, Trump will struggle to achieve anything in office.

2) The new administration must swiftly demonstrate competence to quell fears of amateurishness

Arguably Trump’s biggest selling point was his total lack of political experience. Now he has to govern, it could become his achilees heel. We are yet to see any evidence that the new president has coherent policies or even the ability to construct a team capable of governing. Only 29 out of 660 appointments have been made.

When looking ahead to the big political betting stories of 2017, I discussed the likelihood of a series of by-elections being triggered by Labour MPs, aimed at destabilising Jeremy Corbyn, or at least having that effect. After a second of his fiercest critics quit this morning, we already have two to look forward to.

In the wake of Jamie Reed’s resignation before Christmas, one-time leadership hopeful Tristram Hunt has followed suit. Like Reed, Hunt has a legitimate excuse, in the form of a lucrative job offer. Running the V&A or a highly paid position in the nuclear industry is clearly regarded a better career move than sitting on Labour’s backbenches. Let alone fighting what could be a bloodbath at the next general election on a ticket he doesn’t believe in.

The Labour leader already faces a perilous test in Copeland, for which Betfair punters still rate the Tories favourites to win at [1.71]. Defeat in Cumbria would be a devastating blow but the excuses are at least ready to go. The significance of the nuclear industry, overwhelmingly white and ageing population, make this a uniquely bad seat for Corbyn. Losing Stoke-on-trent would be on another level – a new low in Labour history.

Historically, this is one of Labour’s safest seats. Even in the last two diabolical general election results, Hunt won by more than 5,000. Yet in a signal of just how little confidence gamblers have in Corbyn’s Labour, they were matched just shy of even money early, before settling around [1.75].

If you thought 2016 was a freak political year, ahead of a return to business as usual, think again. Next week, the unlikeliest President in US history will take office and Donald Trump shows no sign of evolving into anything like we’ve come to expect in a national leader.

Business as usual would involve a new president coming to office with the approval of at worst half the country. Trump starts with a -14% approval rating, with just 37% favorable. By comparison, Obama leaves office with 55% approval and his net rating at this same moment in January 2008 was around 50 points net higher.

Following the biggest ever year in political betting history, dominated by Brexit and Donald Trump, there is plenty of scope for world-changing drama in 2017. As discussed below, there are three major European elections with profound implications for the continent. However in terms of providing betting activity throughout the whole year, the biggest markets of 2017 are equally likely to concern a party whom virtually nobody believes has a chance of winning power.

Like centre-left parties everywhere, Labour are in crisis, with truly dismal poll numbers and deeply divided. For a party with little to say regarding nationalism, Brexit and it’s fallout is a disaster. Perhaps most damagingly, Jeremy Corbyn will never receive neutral coverage from an overwhelmingly hostile media. Every little mistake and electoral setback is magnified, with arch-enemies given frequent airtime to attack the Labour leader.

The first of those setbacks may arrive early, at the Copeland by-election – a seat which Labour has held for over 80 years, yet is regarded as merely 36% likely to win by Betfair punters. There are rumours of many more resignations from Labour MPs who see little future in parliament, triggering a series of by-elections – each presented as a referendum on Corbyn.

While none of that means he will necessarily be removed as party leader – his mandate from two elections is enormous – it will mean endless speculation and therefore betting activity. Besides Copeland and any additional by-election, the two markets to watch are Corbyn To Go Before The Next Election? and Next Labour Leader. In the latter, front-runners Keir Starmer and Clive Lewis are likely to shorten up further. These rising stars are among a small number who are capable of uniting the party and both now have front-line roles with lots of media exposure.

Will there be an election in 2017?

Since 2010, the date of the next general election has been laid down by law, thus ruining a staple of political betting. In the old days, it was great sport for media and punters to try and read the mind of the PM, predicting when they would go to the country. When Gordon Brown famously bottled an early election against David Cameron in 2007, vast amounts were matched on Betfair and a huge gamble foiled.

Compared to Brexit or a Donald Trump presidency, the fate of the increasingly irrelevant Labour Party may seem like small beer. Nevertheless, the rise and widely predicted, pending fall of Jeremy Corbyn continues to compete for headlines and provide plenty of betting activity.

Despite defying the odds, media derision and vitriol from most of his colleagues to win the leadership in 2015; then overwhelmingly defeat a challenge in 2016, there is virtually zero chance of Corbyn enjoying a smooth, successful 2017 with the party coming together behind his leadership.

Rather, following today’s shock resignation of Labour MP Jamie Reed, one significant by-election defeat could trigger another challenge and potentially destroy Corbyn’s leadership and his project. Reed’s Copeland constituency and it’s previous incarnation has voted Labour solidly since 1935 but, in the current climate, this part of Cumbria looks far from safe Labour territory.

There are many things that we should have learned about Donald Trump over the past 18 months – most of all that he routinely breaks political convention and is unpredictable. Which is why playing Betfair’s Next Secretary of State market is both exciting and fraught with danger.

Consider the last two incumbents – John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. Both top-level Democrat politicians, firmly on the same page as President Obama. Likewise Condi Rice and Colin Powell under President Bush. I don’t recall much betting activity on those nominations but, if there had been, the odds would have been short.

Compare that to the daily media drama involving Trump’s selection. We hear about the growing list of interviewees, but are then left wondering whether this was a serious interview, while various factions argue about them. It is tempting to conclude that Trump is doing what Trump does best – playing the media and sucking up all their oxygen.

Since the market opened, over half the money has been traded on one man – a selection that would generate endless publicity and speculation about motives. Mitt Romney has been matched down to [2.2] (45%) which, for my money, is way too short.

One could speculate about numerous motives. Is this revenge – setting his most vehement critic up for a very public humiliation? If Romney doesn’t get the job, that will certainly be achieved.

Or is it a magnimous gesture – proving that Trump can reach out to rivals and opponents in the national interest? The 2012 nominee is unarguably a heavyweight.

Or is Trump laying down a marker to his team and supporters about who calls the shots? The likes of Kelly-Anne Conway, Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee are in open revolt about the prospect of Romney. So too Sean Hannity and much of his fanatical support base.

Rather like the VP selections, the problem with these markets are we are trying to predict the mind and behaviour of one individual, whom we don’t know. We also don’t know when the result will be announced. We could place a bet right now, and find out it’s fate within minutes. For all we know, the decision has been made.

Lest we forget, plenty of favourites were beaten in the Republican VP market – Gingrich, Christie, Kasich, Sessions. I got 34.0 about the eventual winner Mike Pence late in the piece. Previously he’d been above 100.

It all leads me to conclude that Romney could be another dodgy favourite. The fact that some media companies are calling him the front-runner doesn’t mean much when the same media said that those other names were top of the VP list.

Sure Romney could win but there are plenty of alternatives. For foreign policy expertise, Jon Huntsman or Bob Corker would fit the bill. I’m not totally convinced the nominee is even in the betting yet, and note that Fox are reporting that Ford CEO Alan Mulally is to be interviewed. At 37.5%, Romney’s chance looks overstated.

One week ago, that great British tradition of by-election upsets was upheld. The Lib Dem victory in Richmond Park not only restored their reputation as the ultimate mid-term protest party and by-election specialists, but signaled a potentially big change in our political landscape since Brexit. Tomorrow, we will get another chance to test the new waters in a very different seat.

Sleaford and North Hykeham has never, to my knowledge, made electoral headlines. It is so safe a Conservative seat that, even when the party endured catastrophic defeat in the 1997 Blair landslide, they won by 5,000 votes. Last year Stephen Phillips was returned with a mere 24,000 majority.

On those bare numbers, even the 1.1 odds about a Conservative win would appear to understate their chances. However after a run that has seen Remain and Hillary Clinton beaten after being matched at even shorter odds, then Zac Goldsmith defeated last week from odds around 1.33, who would dare back a short-odds favourite in a political market?

Before assuming a repeat of last week’s drama, first consider the fundamental differences between this seat and Richmond Park. Unlike that heavily pro-Remain, outer-London seat, the result in this rural Lincolnshire constituency was a resounding victory for Brexit, by 62-38. A Lib Dem victory here would be totally miraculous.

Five months on from the referendum, one issue continues to crowd out all others in British politics. The fallout from Brexit and attempts to resist it will dominate the agenda for years to come, shaping the narrative and potentially re-aligning our party system. The first meaningful electoral test of that fallout arrives this Thursday, with the Richmond Park By-Election.

The winning camp will inevitably spin the result as a vindication of their own position. If Zac Goldsmith – a Brexiteer – retains one of most pro-Remain constituencies in the country, Leavers will argue that the public back Theresa May in committing the Conservatives to respecting the referendum result, irrespective of how they voted in June.

Alternatively, if Sarah Olney were to reclaim the seat for the Lib Dems (who held it until 2010), it would provide a massive boost to those pushing for a second referendum or at least a watering down of Brexit. The battle lines will harden.

The US Election votes are still being counted but with each day that passes, this result looks ever more like the greatest electoral anomaly in living memory. Hillary Clinton is on course to win by the popular vote by around 2M votes, yet suffer a resounding 306-232 defeat in the electoral college.

This isn’t an excuse. I argued many times that the electoral college favoured the Democrats nowadays and am happy to fess up to being completely blindsided by this result. Trump redrew the map in a way other Republicans have only dreamed – that fact is unarguable.

Nevertheless, we need to understand why the overwhelming majority of pundits – and betting markets – were proved so spectacularly wrong.

Pollsters are predictably taking flak and differential turnout seems almost certainly to have been a factor – just as it was with Brexit and the 2015 UK General Election. We know that older voters turnout far more reliably than younger ones – favouring the Right.

However these don’t tell the whole story, nor really vindicate talk of a ‘silent majority’. If that was so, Clinton wouldn’t be winning the popular vote. Pollsters weren’t so far off the mark.

One area I believe requires further examination is the electoral system, and the effect it has on undecided or voters that are less than enthusiastic about the main options. It almost certainly applies to UK elections too, and have long suspected goes a long way towards explaining how almost everyone called our 2015 General Election so wrong.

Unlike countries that use proportional representation, both the USA and UK have first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting systems, with results awarded on a winner-takes-all basis by constituency or state. The effect is to create the sense of a binary choice – despite the political preferences of both electorates being increasingly diverse.

Could it be that respondents answer polls honestly, listing their favourite choice, yet end up going for a tactical option on the day, having considered the realistic effect of their vote?

While FPTP worked perfectly in the 1950s, when Conservatives and Labour shared over 95% of the vote, it was inappropriate last year, when our TV debates included seven different parties. The big-two haven’t even scored 70% between them since 2001.

Likewise, whilst the 2016 election was always in reality a Clinton v Trump head-to-head, polls consistently showed the public were interested in other options – either via a historically high number of undecided voters, or Gary Johnson and Jill Stein scoring double digits combined.

Yet in both cases, the main two parties were miles apart on policy, the population increasingly partisan and the polls pointed to a very tight contest. Whatever voters felt in their hearts, they knew that a vote for Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, the Lib Dems or UKIP would feel like a wasted one if the ‘wrong’ side won.

Both shock results, I believe, were driven a significant rise in what effectively amounts to tactical voting. Trump owes his electoral college victory to the fact that he dominated among late deciders and the collapse in both Johnson and Stein’s support.

Likewise, the Tories owed their majority in 2015 to almost wiping out their Lib Dem coalition partners – something which was not predicted by constituency markets or polls. A squeezing of Lib Dem or UKIP voters may also have swung several key Con-Lab marginals in favour of David Cameron’s party – again in defiance of polls and markets.

When polled several times during the course of the 2010-15 parliament, the Lib Dems were consistently close or ahead in the constituencies which they already held. The market factored in they’d lose around half of their 57 seats, but nobody saw them getting just 8. Virtually every Lib Dem seat targeted by Labour or the Conservatives fell – and the latter won many more, dramatically altering the electoral maths.

There was simply no polling evidence for anything like the scale of swing in Lib-Con marginals. Nor was there much evidence on the ground or sense among activists. Yet there was undoubtably a big, late swing in these places to the Tories, without which they would never have won a majority.

These voters are often labelled ‘Shy Tories’ or ‘Shy Trumpers’, but I’m not sure that is accurate. They might ideally be Johnson or Lib Dem voters (at least on a local level), but went for the practical option in fear of helping Clinton or Labour.

This would be far less likely to be an issue under a proportional representation system, as widely used elsewhere. They would have no need to switch, as it is usually clear which way a candidate will swing after the election. Hence people are free to vote their conscience.

It is way too early to predict the effect of Trumpism on US politics. There is definitely a yearning for extra choices and in some respects the rise of Trump and Bernie Sanders reflects that. Both parties could undergo ideological transformation, but we can only wait and see how that affects voting behaviour.

So the UK will provide the next test for this theory, whenever the election happens. Ours will remain very much a multi-party system and the fate of both UKIP and the Lib Dems will have a pivotal effect.

Interestingly, Lib Dem performance has regularly blindsided betting markets. In 1997, 2001 and 2005, they considerably overperformed expectations. The logical explanation was that this small party could focus all it’s resources effectively on key targets, yet could never compete on a national scale.

In 2010, they underperformed after a national polling surge, for the same reason. They didn’t have a nationwide organisation, or the resources to compete in inner-city Labour-held seats that had suddenly appeared within range.

Next time could see the trend reverse. Unlike 2010 and 2015, it will probably not be close, with the Tories expected to win big, just as Labour did between 1997 and 2005. The motivation for voters in those (mostly southern) Con-Lib marginals to ‘stop Labour’ may no longer exist, leaving them free to switch back.

The first test of that is looming at the Richmond by-election, which the Lib Dems are trying to turn into a contest about Brexit. I’m not convinced they’ll oust the sitting MP Zac Goldsmith and suspect it is too early for this new dividing line to truly reap dividends. It is, nevertheless, an interesting work in progress.

Where on earth to start after the most incredible political event most of us can ever remember? I’ve just returned to the UK and will be writing more over the weekend but for this first piece, I’ll simply settle up the portfolio ahead of wider explanation and analysis.

Obviously, Trump becoming president was a catastrophe – easily my worst ever political betting outcome – although it could have been a lot worse. As advised on Twitter whilst the drama was unfolding, I managed to cover some of my losses, but by no means all.

All things added up, it amounted to a 358 unit loss on the published portfolio in Betfair’s Next President market.

Set against 87 units profit made on the Republican Nomination, 54 profit on the VP Nominee markets, plus various primary and state bets, the US Election cycle cost me 194 units.

It wipes out the 170 units profit made on Brexit and the 22 units from Jeremy Corbyn’s re-election. I’ve still made some small money from politics this year – from a couple of bets not listed in those portfolios (an early sell of Jeb Bush plus a Brexit spread bet) and the Tory leadership but I won’t pretend this isn’t a seriously disappointing result!

Particularly because I played the market unprofessionally, not taking the advice I’d given others about covers. Hedging my position either going into the final day or after the first results would have been easy. Back Trump at big odds to win Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan at big odds in the knowledge that one from three would yield a profit, while all three would yield a big win and enable the sort of covers that I placed in-running on the main result.

I paid a price for getting greedy. I never thought Trump had a prayer and, on reflection, perhaps became obsessive about never wavering whilst other prediction models constantly hedged. Gambling, rather than trading.

A stupid exercise in vanity and lack of self-discipline. You don’t spend 15 years as a professional gambler (after ten as a semi-pro) without knowing these are fundamental mistakes. There are no certainties in betting and one should never leave massive risk open when the option to at least cheaply remove most of it exists.

England’s historic win in the 1994 Barbados Test Match was the last time I can recall beating myself up so badly. Nevertheless, I know how to take a hit and move forward. That won’t be a problem.

When I was first asked my prediction to be the Next US President back in July 2015, the answer needed no hesitation – Hillary Rodham Clinton. She was favourite on Betfair’s market back then and, despite a rollercoaster ride over the next 16 months including the constant threat of indictment, has never surrendered that position. That market trend is identical to Barack Obama between 2008 and his second victory in 2012.

After the conventions, I doubled down, laying out seven reasons why Trump wouldn’t win. Entering the final 24 hours of this unforgettable race, I’m as confident as ever about her chances, for at least the following five reasons.

1) The fundamental dynamics became fixed once Donald Trump secured the nomination

Make no mistake, Clinton has been extremely fortunate to face this opponent. Had the GOP picked John Kasich or Marco Rubio, I believe she would now be staring down the barrel of a big defeat. Even a divisive figure like Ted Cruz would have roughly a 50/50 chance against this flawed Democrat candidate.

However after an anarchic, damaging process that may haunt the party for years to come, the Republicans ended up with the worst candidate in presidential history. Trump won via his celebrity and ability to monopolise media coverage. It turned the entire election cycle into a referendum on him.

While that just about worked when playing to an unrepresentative primary audience, it is catastrophic for a General Election. From the outset, Trump has been toxic to a majority of Americans. Half of all voters have probably never even vaguely considered voting for him.The more he dominates the media narrative, the more entrenched opposition becomes.

These six electoral college votes will be among the most keenly contested as NV has picked every president since 1976. Polls have regularly pointed to a near dead-heat although there could be sampling issues here. Local political expert Jon Ralston has argued that Hispanics may be understated and registration numbers reinforce that theory.

Trump’s Las Vegas casinos probably aid his image in the state and he certainly won a thumping victory in the primaries. However NV could turn out to be another place where his divisive language and policies prove costly.

At the last census, 20% of this state’s population was Hispanic and that number is growing fast. In addition to that sizeable anti-Trump bloc, 6% are Mormon (much higher than average). Whereas Mormons broke decisively for co-religionist Romney in 2012, Trump has had enormous troubles trying to win over this community across the USA.

Two days out from the conclusion of the most incredible election cycle and biggest political betting event in history, the verdict of Betfair punters remains the same as it has ever since the market opened – Hillary Clinton will be the Next US President.

After drifting significantly from 1.2 to 1.44 lastweek, the money is pouring back in for her. She’s now a [1.28] chance, which equates to a 78% likelihood. Donald Trump is trading at 4.7 (21%).

Polls: Trump has momentum but Clinton retains a clear lead

Trump enjoyed plenty of momentum last week, with both national and key state polls narrowing. According to the RealClearPolitics average, Clinton’s lead is down to just 1.8% – roughly a third of the position just a fortnight ago.

Nevertheless, whilst the average is close, her lead is consistent. Since the beginning of October, only the USC/LATimes has recorded Trump in front. That particular survey has consistently looked like a pro-Trump outlier and, without it, Clinton’s average lead would be higher.

However on the flip side her average is raised by polls including larger numbers of undecided/third party voters, in which her lead tends to be bigger. The wider trend suggests this group are likelier to break for Trump and this probably explains the recent tightening. Sceptical Republicans are ‘coming home’.

Trading inevitably involves navigating peaks and troughs in the market. Timing is pivotal to success.

Whilst it has been profitable so far and I remain extremely confident about the outcome, on the latter point, I can’t say I’ve played this election cycle well. In the primaries my cover bets on Trump were terribly timed, probably halving the profit.

So too, with hindsight, I wish I’d covered against Clinton when she was around 1.2 last week before the FBI news broke. Had I done so, my bank would be bigger going into these closing stages when liquidity is great and so many good bets are appearing.

The reason I didn’t is the same reason I’m not covering now. Then I felt even 1.2 understated her chance and so too does 1.35 now. I simply cannot see a realistic path to Trump getting 270 unless the polls are systemically wrong. I don’t believe they are and am struck by this recent NYT analysis that suggests any ‘missing’ white voters are actually likelier to be Democrat. The reverse theory has been my sole nagging doubt.

Moreover, the handicap odds have always under-stated Clinton. As I wrote earlier this week, these markets offer outstanding value.

If Clinton wins – and I’m very confident – she will likely win the most valuable swing states. For example Florida’s 29 votes – and the market is moving her way as early voting progresses – would take her well in excess of 300 electoral college votes.

Moreover, I believe we are likelier to see surprise results in the states where Trump is strong favourite – Arizona, Utah – than in the ones where he needs to pull off a big upset like Pennsylvania, or Michigan. (Nevertheless these last two states remain the best way of covering, if that is your preference). Even in the states which I expect Trump to win – Ohio, Iowa – his amateurish ground game is too much of a worry to bet at odds-on.

My current electoral college prediction is either 322 or 323 – depending on Maine CD2, which I’m loathe to call. Arizona would take us up to 333/334 and I’m happy to keep that on side. New Latino registration is stronger here than anywhere else in the country.

Regarding updates, the best place to follow me is on Twitter. The odds are moving so fast and I’m not always in a position to blog immediately. When I do, it appears on there immediately.

Sometimes it isn’t worth posting specific new bets because the odds will disappear. For example, I’ve backed Clinton to win Nevada at 1.44 – for 30 units – but she’s mostly been shorter since. That bet was strongly implied in my recent piece regarding side markets but I haven’t specifically advised a stake.

With nearly £90M matched already, Betfair’s Next President market is well on course to become the biggest political betting event of all-time. This main market, however, is only the tip of the iceberg.

For the serious political bettor, there’s a bet to cover pretty much every angle. That includes odds on every state, the percentage totals of each candidate, turnout and the margin of victory. All will be traded in-running on election day itself. Here’s my selection of the best current bets and most interesting markets to watch in the days ahead, with a view towards trading.

Clinton is tremendous value on the electoral college handicap markets

For those of us already on the long-term favourite, the last few days have been rather worrying. Opinion polls were already showing Hillary Clinton’s big lead evaporating before FBI director James Comey threw an October Surprise into the mix last Friday.

Although evidence of the latest e-mail controversy actually hurting her electorally is thin, the market trajectory seems to assume it will eventually take its toll. At 1.4, she has drifted back to around a mark last seen after the first TV debate. Disregarding the potential for a late switch in voting sentiment, though, everything we know about state polls and early voting suggests that is a value odds-on bet.

In ten days, hundreds of millions of people will breathe a huge sigh of relief as the strangest, most entertaining, depressing, dramatic and unpredictable election in democratic history is finally resolved. And that’s just American voters. Those of us who’ve spent the last year trading Betfair’s US election markets will need a holiday.

New FBI statement spooks the market

Just when it seemed the race was set and the deal done, yet another bombshell sent markets into a frenzy last night when FBI director James Comey told Congress that investigations into Hillary Clinton’s e-mails remained ongoing, having previously concluded that Clinton had been ‘careless’ but would not be prosecuted.

Immediately headlines saying the investigation was re-opened went viral. With details slow to emerge, wild speculation on social media remains predictably rife. Adding extra spice is the fact that the e-mails were not sent by Clinton but her aide Huma Abedin – former partner of disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner.

The following piece was published on Thursday, before the latest e-mail drama. The odds have moved considerably since against Clinton, but the general argument still applies.

With less than a fortnight until polling day, the verdict from various prediction models and Betfair markets is unanimous. Hillary Clinton is overwhelmingly likely to become the Next President. On our main market, the former First Lady is rated 82% likely at 1.22, compared to 18% for Donald Trump at 5.6.

That may sound one-sided but, compared to some of these other models, Betfair punters are actually less dismissive of Trump. The NYT/Upshot projection, for example, rates her chances at 91%. Fivethirtyeight forecasts range between 83% and 85%.

A key difference is that, whereas those models are based on rigid dissemination of current polls, betting markets involve speculating about future trajectory and outcomes. That explains why when Trump peaked in the polls before the first debate, these models either narrowed dramatically or even switched around, while the Betfair market remained strongly pro-Clinton. Bettors were taking a punt that momentum would reverse.

Right now, layers at 1.23 are speculating that the odds might move away from Clinton, therefore creating a trading opportunity. I’m not convinced. Unless the polls have been systemically wrong from the start, her lead is bombproof and, given the balance of the electoral college, a Trump victory feels almost unimaginable.

As various recent events on both sides of the Atlantic illustrate, conventional political parties are creaking under the weight of international, cultural and ideological pressures. Voters are less inclined to affiliate or identify themselves with one party, or one set of policies. Party members less likely to take instruction from leaders.

The British party system looks particularly outdated. The last three General Election winners won less than 37% – around a quarter of eligible voters. Yet that small minority was enough to produce majority governments on two of the three occasions. Last May we were treated to the dubious pleasure of an anarchic, seven-party TV debate. MPs from the main opposition party are engulfed in a bitter, suicidal civil war.

Indeed compared to Labour’s existential crisis, the issues that triggered the forthcoming Richmond by-election seem trivial and predictable. Zac Goldsmith has always been an independent-minded MP and a majority Tory government was always likely to give the green light to a third runway at Heathrow. Goldsmith has long been committed to resigning if the decision went against him and, since losing the London Mayoral election, the backbencher has less incentive to stay loyal to his government than staying true to the principles on which he was elected.

Plus, Goldsmith knew from previous defections in the last parliament that his constituents would probably back their local MP over the party. Significantly, unlike Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless, Goldsmith will not even have to fight a Conservative candidate. Though his tag will be independent, one must assume he will at least mop up the core Tory vote.

Nevertheless, the Heathrow decision has created a big political (and therefore betting) event. In between major elections, the media love a fiercely competitive by-election, especially when it’s within reasonable distance for London journalists. During the last parliament by-elections in Eastleigh, Clacton and Rochester became major media events.

One of the key battlegrounds. Obama won in 2008 – becoming the first Democrat to do so since 1976 – but lost in 2012. If Clinton wins these 15 electoral college votes back, it becomes extremely hard to imagine her losing. No Republican has won without NC since 1956.

This is another state where cultural and demographic changes – such as urbanisation and a growing minority population – have altered the electoral maths towards the Democrats’ favour. Early voting has already begun, since when the market has moved towards Clinton.

A couple of issues specific to NC may also help Clinton. Controversy about voter suppression, primarily affecting the substantial black population and other minority voters, has raged ever since 2012 and that could significantly motivate Democrats to register and vote. It almost certainly explains the big rise in early voting, as people rush to avoid the risk of disenfranchisement.

Another divisive issue is the so-called ‘Bathroom Bill‘, that restricted access to public facilities including toilets for transgenders. As a result, corporations, musicians, the NCCA and NBA boycotted the state.

One of many strange features of this unique election cycle has been that, ever since the primary process yielded historically unpopular candidates, there has been constant speculation about finding alternatives to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

First there was months of speculation about Trump being blocked at the Republican Convention – prompting gambles about several alternatives. Most notably Paul Ryan was backed down to 15.0 despite never joining the race.

Then when Clinton fell ill with pneumonia at a 9/11 memorial, all hell broke loose on Betfair’s Next President market. Another non-runner, Joe Biden, shortened to just 20.0 Bernie Sanders around 30.0. Even Michelle Obama attracted some money at huge odds!

Most recently, after the emergence of the infamous #TrumpTapes, Mike Pence was backed down to 40.0 as rumours swirled about Republicans flipping their ticket. Now, with less than three weeks until polling day, a new name is rising. And unlike the others, Evan McMullin is actually on the ballot paper.

Fighting against a backdrop of terrible polls, Donald Trump desperately needed a gamechanging, momentum-reversing performance in last night’s third and final debate.

He didn’t produce it.

Compared to the two previous debates and perhaps above expectations, Trump actually performed pretty well. Focus groups of undecided voters on both CNN and CBS said he edged it and, live-tweeting for Betfair, I felt he earned at least a draw.

1) Another contentious debate but higher quality, less abusive than the last one. Trump held his own and did better than expectations.

There were other positive indicators from the snap verdicts. CNN’s debate-viewer poll – which they acknowledge is slightly skewed towards the Democrats – showed a closer margin than last time at 52-39 to Clinton. On issues and authenticity, he earned a virtual tie.

However other key measurements indicated that Trump’s efforts were in vain. Asked whether the debate made them likelier to vote for either candidate, 23% said Trump, 22% Clinton and 55% no change. A huge 61-31 majority considered her to have better understanding of the issues. On being prepared for the presidency, Clinton dominated yet again, 59-35.

Therein lies Trump’s fundamental problems – he has never been regarded as qualified or temperamentally fit for office. I wrote before the first debate that he had a brief window to reset that image and improve longstanding unfavorables. Instead he reinforced it, doubled and tripled down afterwards – dealing fatal blows even before the groping tape and sexual assault allegations destroyed his credibility and candidacy.

As implied in yesterday’s piece, I could hardly be more confident about my long-running pro-Clinton positions. Trump is headed for a big defeat and the task is to measure the scale of it.

At this stage, I’m not altering the published portfolio. I’m heavily invested in a big Clinton victory and expect the market will move in our favour as we approach polling day. Then I may consider some cover bets but not yet.

Nevertheless I am still trading and want to explain some of the opportunities to hedge between markets that are increasingly available.

Liquidity on Betfair is increasing, if nothing to get excited about. Therefore, it is tricky for me to list all the bets I’m placing. For example it might simply a case of taking £40 on one market, then hedging via another market instantly. Not enough to recommend as the odds may not still be available.

So instead, I’ll just offer an example of the type of hedges that are available. The most obvious is to hedge between Clinton for Next President and one or two of the margin options.

The best right now is to back her at 1.21 to be Next President. Then lay the two upper bands – 330-359 and 360 plus – in the Clinton Electoral College Votes market. The current odds to lay are around 3.4 and 3.2, which combined equates to around 1.67.

If the stakes are calculated with a view to producing the same returns, the trade effectively amounts to taking around 4.4 on Clinton getting 270-329. A big price about a 60 vote margin, which includes numerous realistic permutations and outcomes.

Note, this is not a tip, just an example. If you want to ask anything or clarify this complex trading strategy, feel free to comment below or ask me on Twitter @paulmotty.

We are already heavily invested in the handicap markets. They’ve all moved in our favour, but still make no appeal to cash out, for two reasons. First. laying higher bands in the electoral college markets as explained above offers better value.

Second, Clinton might need fewer votes than first thought to win these handicaps, if Evan McMullin wins Utah. If that live prospect occurs, she’ll need six fewer votes than the marks listed below in my p/l.

***UPDATE

I wrote the text below before checking the rules against the RCP map of ‘Solid Clinton’, which discounts District of Colombia. Therefore, it will require all ten, rather than nine, of the RCP toss-ups – as amended below.

Obviously, the bet is now less value and I may well seek to bail out of it in due course. However I do still think these extra states are going to come into play, keeping the bet a live runner. Indeed there have been promising polls from GA and TX in the last 24 hours.

Somebody shrewder than me has obviously realised in the last few minutes, because the odds have drifted out to 6.4 from 3.0! I must add, though, that 6.4 is still too big.

***

The other market that intrigues me is Democrat States Won, which I advised a bet on 30 plus last week at 3.0. It’s actually bigger now, despite polls and other markets moving further towards Clinton since.

This strikes me as good value, considering the rapidly shortening odds in numerous individual states. I’ve long mentioned Arizona, Georgia and Texas as potential Democrat upsets. Given the toxic nature of Trump, I’m not ruling out other surprises that may not appear on the polling radar – especially if McMullin becomes a factor in states beyond Utah.

To reach 30, she’ll need to win all ten toss-ups on the current RCP map – she’s favourite in nine with Indiana the sole exception. That toss-up list does not include GA or TX so, adding them, she needs ten of those 12. It’s not a certainty by any means, given that IA and OH remain realistic Trump targets, but I reckon likelier than the 32% implied by the odds.

Note also that if TX and GA are competitive, that brings the higher electoral college bands very much into play. This is why, in all cases, it pays right now to be backing the upper end of these Clinton margin markets.

OVERALL POSITION AFTER ELECTORAL COLLEGE BETS

Trump President -561 units

Clinton 270 – 293: +75 units

Clinton 294 – 306: +110 units

Clinton 307 – 318: +165 units

Clinton 319 – 329: +242 units

Clinton 330 – 359: +392 units

Clinton 360 or more: +242 units

**I also have 50 units @ 3.0 on 30 or more Democrat states won. It could fall into either 330-359 or 360 plus, depending on the states in question.

If we can trust the opinion polls, Donald Trump’s bid for the presidency appears to be doomed. Three weeks from polling day and ahead of tomorrow’s final TV debate, the Republican candidate trails Hillary Clinton across a slate of national polls by an average 7% and sometimes double-digit margins.

By comparison, at this stage four years ago, Barack Obama was effectively tied with Mitt Romney. Thanks to a strong finish, superior organisation and favourable electoral map, Obama eventually won by 4% and a large 126 margin in the electoral college.

With those figures in mind, the key question for bettors less concerns who will be president, but predicting Clinton’s margin of victory. Indeed, once this year’s electoral map is taken into account, even Clinton’s extremely prohibitive 1.2 odds, (which equate to an 83% likelihood), seem an under-estimate.

To become the Next President, Clinton needs to win 270 electoral college votes. According to the latest RealClearPolitics estimate, she is comfortably on course to earn 256 even before ten toss-up states offering a further 112 are counted.

Though only offering ten electoral college votes, the Badger State is one of the most important. Along with Pennsylvania, it is probably the most vulnerable in Clinton’s firewall.

The bad news for Trump is that no Republican has won it since Ronald Reagan in 1984. Four years ago, one would have thought they had the dream ticket with popular Congressman Paul Ryan running as Romney’s VP, yet they still lost by 7% to Obama/Biden.

The Wisconsin electorate is particularly active and politicised, following years of conflict between GOP Governor Scott Walker and the labor unions. That didn’t work out well for Trump in the primaries as, unlike elsewhere, prominent Conservatives such as Charlie Sykes were determined to scrutinise the New Yorker’s ideological credentials.

The result was a series of media disasters and a thumping defeat to Ted Cruz at a time when the presumptive nominee should have been cruising to victories. He’ll need to do significantly better in Conservative strongholds such as Waukesha County.

The Sunshine State probably garners more international attention than any in US elections, particularly since the ‘hanging chads’ debacle in 2000 handed the presidency to George W Bush. With 29 electoral college votes up for grabs and a tight partisan split, it is always pivotal to the result.

It is another state that the Republicans simply have to win to maintain any realistic chance but, theoretically at least, the Democrats could still afford to lose. Obama only beat Romney by 1% in 2012 – compared to 4% nationwide – making it their most vulnerable defence.

This year’s race is particularly hard to predict, given the Trump factor. On one hand the GOP nominee, who owns several famous properties in the state, should thrive amongst the large numbers of older, white voters and thrashed Florida Senator Marco Rubio here in the primaries.

On the other, his toxicity among Hispanic voters could prove costly. If they register in much larger numbers this time – a trend seen in numerous states, presumably in response to Trump – it could decisively change the maths in Clinton’s favour.

Plus whereas Republicans tend to do better among voters of Cuban descent, the emerging news story that Trump violated the US embargo against the Castro regime could be a gamechanger. Rubio is demanding answers and could come under pressure to un-endorse his party’s candidate.

The Buckeye State is often referred to as America’s ultimate bellweather, based on the fact it has picked every president since 1960. Both parties will throw huge campaign resources in pursuit of these 18 electoral college votes – down two from 2012. It is particularly important for Republicans, who have never won the presidency without it.

It is certainly an essential component Trump’s route to the 270 electoral college votes required to win. His message about reversing economic decline most resonates in the Rust Belt, and Ohio’s higher percentage of white voters favours him more than in neighbouring Michigan or Pennsylvania. In contrast while Democrats will try equally hard, Ohio is not an essential target as Clinton has various realistic alternative routes to 270.

Indeed, Ohio’s importance may be overstated this year. The clearest division between Trump and Clinton supporters is race but in contrast to numerous key states, the minority population here is falling. That partly explains why his poll numbers here often defy national trends.

One potential negative for Trump, however, is popular Republican Governor John Kasich’s failure to endorse him. Ground game is critical here in order to maximise the vote and it is reported that Trump must do without the help of Kasich’s dual-election winning team.

Last week I was privileged to make my third appearance on the superb RT show “Watching the Hawks”. This time I was live in the studio, rather than via satellite link, so I got to watch a particularly interesting episode close-up.

In addition to discussing the latest odds to win the presidency, distribution of electoral college votes and the scale of election betting across the industry, I offered a couple of outside bets to keep an eye on. This was the day before the #Trumptapes emerged, so the timing couldn’t have been better!

Losing the opening TV debate need not necessarily spell disaster for a presidential campaign. Four years ago, Barack Obama was widely assumed to have lost to Mitt Romney. The polls moved briefly towards Romney but the president bounced back in the final two en route to a landslide.

A good omen, then, for Donald Trump supporters who had to suffer watching their man lose badly at Hofstra University two weeks ago, and the polls predictably respond in Clinton’s favour. That debate humilation, however, seems like a lifetime ago and the least of Trump’s worries.

Frankly, this election has become breathlessly exciting. Taking your eye off it for 24 hours, even just sleeping, invariably means missing some potential game-changing bombshell. There has surely never been a better time to own shares in US cable news.

As anyone paying attention will know, this weekend’s headlines are dominated by the issue trending on Twitter as #TrumpTapes – a 2005 recording of Trump bragging explictly to Billy Bush of NBC’s “Access Hollywood” about his sexual exploits, pursuing a married woman and how fame enables him to kiss and grope random women.

As momentum swings firmly towards Hillary Clinton, there will inevitably be talk of a Donald Trump comeback. There is still a month to go and the media needs a close race for rating purposes.

However at the risk of being accused of talking up my book, we need to equally discuss just how bad things could get for Trump and consider the possibility of a meltdown. Frankly, the polls and news cycle are shocking and, given his propensity to double down on every mistake, could get worse.

First, the polls. Never mind the nationwide numbers showing her opening up a lead – the numbers in swing states suggest he needs a miracle. In Pennsylvania – which I’ve long argued is an essential component of his unlikely route to 270 electoral college votes – two surveys today put Clinton 9 and 10% up.

Likewise, the latest figures from Colorado, Virginia and New Hampshire all suggest her firewall is rock-solid. Win those four states, plus Michigan and Wisconsin (states where he has never even polled within 3%) and she’s certain to cross the line. Whatever positive signals come out from more favourable states like Iowa and Ohio, this is basic mathematical reality.

It is incredible to think that only eight days ago, some were talking about a dead-heat and fivethirtyeight was constantly revising it’s overly reactive model. Some of us never bought that narrative, expecting the news cycle to reverse after the debate and Trump to wilt under scrutiny. As it turned out, we couldn’t have written the script better.

A large chunk of the Republican base never bought into Trumpism. However as the year drew on, most chose delusion rather than action to avert electoral disaster. The GOP establishment’s embrace of Trump, thwarting a substantial plot to ‘Free the Delegates’ at the convention, will go down as a historic mistake. Ted Cruz’s belated endorsement will haunt him forever.

The dynamic in play was pure delusion. A belief that the wild, offensive, unprepared, undisciplined, policy-illiterate version of Trump was merely an act to win the primaries. That he would pivot to become a normal candidate when confronted with a general election audience. Big mistake.

As it turns out, what was Trump’s greatest strength during the primaries turned out to be his greatest weakness – authenticity. When he was telling blatant repeat lies, mocking a disabled reporter, insulting women, gold star families, Mexicans, judges or Heidi Cruz – that was the real Trump.

The debate was bad enough but it didn’t necessarily have to be ruinous. Obama lost the first debate in 2012.

The response – picking fights over Alicia Machado, 3am tweetstorms, threatening to go after the Clinton’s marital problems, implying that Hillary had been unfaithful to Bill – was deranged. Simply the worst electoral strategy anyone can ever remember.

In doing so at just the point when the key undecided voters were most likely to be paying attention, he has blown any chance of altering a reputation that has consistently measured 60% unfavourable. More critically, the massive deficit behind Clinton on temperament and being qualified looks irreversible.

Worse may be yet to come. The full effect of the tax returns revelations may not be factored in yet. It now invites the media to go hard after his charitable contributions, or lack of. David Fahrenholt’s detailed investigations could haunt Trump for the rest of the election cycle.

And this may just be the tip of the iceberg. Trump’s alleged Russian connections and backing of Vladimir Putin remain live stories. So too Trump University and pay-for-play allegations regarding Florida AG Pam Bondi.

Trump’s dealings with Castro’s Cuba are rising as an issue, especially in Florida, where Marco Rubio is defending his Senate seat and needs answers. The latest scandal is that Trump allegedly did business with Iran – not something that will please Republicans and will undercut their collective criticism of Obama’s deal with Tehran.

It is easy to imagine that a couple of weeks down the line, the campaign will be engulfed in scandal and Trump dismissed as too far behind in the polls to be considered competitive. Top Republicans like Ryan and Rubio withdraw their endorsement, in a belated defence of their own reputations.

If so, what then? Republicans, many of whom are already struggling with conscience, will have little incentive to turn out for him. A very low percentage becomes realistic – currently backing the two bands for Trump’s vote share to be under 41% equates to around around 5.0 (20%).

Or could something more dramatic happen – like Trump withdrawing? Or just enough speculation for markets to over-react as they did when Clinton got sick last month. All year I’ve felt that with Trump, anything is possible. He does not behave like anyone we’ve ever seen before in public life.

I can only reiterate that, without expecting it to happen, there may be some mileage in taking massive odds about the likeliest alternatives. Particularly VP candidate Mike Pence – who could do his reputation plenty of good with a strong showing in tonight’s debate.

Otherwise, the market always seems to favour Paul Ryan and it is true that he is probably the best placed to unify the party. The two candidates the GOP should have picked – John Kasich and Scott Walker – might also enter calculations.

This scenario is a longshot and I’m not going to alter the portfolio to accomodate them. Just getting Trump beaten would be a great result and liquidity on this outsiders won’t last long enough to represent meaninful advice.

Nevertheless at the current odds, these characters are worth considering at massive odds with a view to laying back if they shorten. After all, people have backed Michelle Obama and Jill Stein today. There is infinitely more chance of Ryan et al being called to the rescue.

Slowly but surely liquidity in the various election markets is improving and, as it develops, I’m building my portfolio. Following last week’s bet on Clinton Electoral College Votes, I’ve now added two more pro-Clinton positions on handicap markets, as advised on Twitter yesterday.

To be clear, these are not definitive predictions. Along with my massive position on Clinton to become president, I’m taking a view that the odds will move in her direction as polling day nears and as the market factors in fundamentals such as the electoral college.

If and when they do, the option to hedge between various different markets will become available. For a guide towards what such a strategy may look like, check out the way I played the Brexit markets.

Also, this may be the best time to play, in advance of poll movements in the wake of her one-sided debate victory and a truly terrible news cycle for Trump. As I’ve said throughout, we cannot rule out a Trump implosion – in which case we’ll be sitting very pretty with these bets. Nevertheless for now, my risk is massive.

So why are these bets value? Well, either the electoral college market is wrong or the handicaps are. Because I’ve just taken 3.1 (32%) about Clinton getting 319 electoral college votes or more. Yet the combined odds of 330-359 and 360 plus – 4.0 and 7.0 respectively – equates to 2.55 (39%).

In other words we could back her to win the handicap, then lay (oppose) those two higher bands, guarantee making money while leaving 319-329 as a massive profit where both bets win. And 319-329 is a very realistic range – for example, Obama states minus Iowa; Obama states plus NC, minus Ohio (or OH and IA).

The question, therefore, is which price is wrong – handicap or electoral college? I say it’s the handicap that’s wrong and expect the odds on Clinton -99.5 to shorten significantly in due course. When it does, I’ll be able to cover much of the risk on her to win the presidency and the -49.5 handicap – if I wish to do so.

I’ll make that decision in due course. As I’ve said before, it may be that covering in specific states is the better option.

This is going to be a complex procedure, so feel free to post any questions on here or directly on Twitter to @paulmotty. Here’s a list of every live bet here.

***UPDATE**

I added a further bet on the handicap market last night, advised on Twitter. The profit/loss figures have been amended to account for it.

Rather than one of the specific electoral college vote total markets, as above, I’ve opted to have a saver on the upper range. As advised on Twitter, I’ve backed the Democrats to win 30 or more states. This would certainly cover 360 plus, and could in a dream scenario also land in the 330-359 band.

New #Election2016 bet: 50 units Democrats to win 30 states or more @ 3.0. See next tweet for reasoning.

To be honest, the lack of liquidity in Betfair’s Clinton Electoral College Votes market is frustrating, although I still expect it to liven up. Otherwise, we’re stuck betting with bookmakers who are liable to restrict or ban you for being a shrewd gambler. Nevertheless, here’s my logic.

Regular readers may recall how we made money out of Brexit. The core plan, that set everything up, was backing a narrow win for Remain via the 50-55% band and hedging between handicap markets to create a ‘middle’ of 50-52.5%. That allowed a cover on Leave, that meant we were effectively laying under 55%.

I was always very confident that Remain wouldn’t go above that percentage and once it became clear on the night that it wouldn’t, covering on Leave to ensure the maximum profit was easy.

The electoral college offers a similar opportunity. We can all try and predict the exact distribution of votes by correctly predicting the result of every state, but the margin for error is obviously big.

For example, Obama won 332 votes, which seems a good benchmark to start from as it’s plausible that they all go exactly the same way. The odds taken today imply Clinton has just a 17% chance of getting between 330 and 359. I reckon that’s a big understatement and that the odds will move our way.

However it isn’t an exact prediction. Take one state away and she falls below our band. Add North Carolina’s 15 votes though, and Clinton has room for error.

Plus we know the Trump effect is not uniform, bringing other states into play. If he has a very poor result, Arizona, Georgia and Texas could dramatically alter calculations. On the other hand, Iowa looks a state he could win even on a bad night. Ohio remains a very realistic gain even if losing nationally. If he performed much better than expected, a shock in one of the North-East states cannot be totally dismissed.

So my plan is to build a book, just like Brexit, where I’ve got odds that decrease between now and polling day. My opinion remains that Clinton is on course to win well. That he is going to struggle to win any swing state. 347 – Obama states plus NC – is realistic.

If it looks set to go that way, the 360 or more band might be the right cover to have, in case AZ or one of the other upsets go for her. If closer, I’ll cover on one or more of the lower bands. Or perhaps just cover on a specific swing state or two. Watch this space for updates.

Heading into Monday’s opening debate, Hillary Clinton backers had plenty to worry about. A combination of health concerns, intense scrutiny of her e-mails and foundation, plus some improved performances from Donald Trump had whittled down a substantial poll lead to a virtual dead-heat.

Her Betfair rating had fallen from 80% to 64%, with Trump hitting his shortest odds yet at 2.68 after some very promising numbers in swing states. Yet almost from the moment proceedings at Hofstra University begun, money poured back in for Clinton. 95 minutes later, she was back to 1.45 (69%), around the same odds as before a health scare at a 9/11 memorial and admission she was suffering from pneumonia.

By winning the debate – by almost unanimous consensus besides die-hard Trump supporters – Clinton has reversed the narrative. Rather than being at death’s door – as so many internet rumours had claimed – she looked strong and confident throughout. Instead it was Trump who tired, with his performance deteriorating as time progressed.

In doing so, the narrative has switched back from whether she is fit to be president to what most voters regard as dubious credentials of her opponent. Whilst we await the polling fallout, it seems likely that at least some of that lead will be restored.

2 Trump flunked his best and perhaps last opportunity to reset a negative image

As noted beforehand, the biggest challenge for Trump was to reverse the widely-held perception that he was unqualified and lacked the temperament to be president. Again, we await updated polling evidence but it seems highly unlikely that he even begun to pass that test. Quite the reverse. When he boasted ‘I have a great temperament’, Clinton’s laugh said it all.

Arguably the biggest single reason behind Donald Trump’s successful bid for the Republican nomination was the fact he has never been a politician. In an era when professional politicians and loathed and distrusted like never before, Trump’s outsider status captivated a conservative audience that yearns for someone to shake up the establishment. Entering the final stretch of the race to be Next President, however, amateurishness could prove his undoing.

At this late stage, having a professional, well-resourced organisation is critical. With more or less 80% of minds already made up, the key is getting them to the polls and targeting the other fifth. That could be via holding rallies in swing counties, mobilising volunteers, television ads, e-mails or other forms of direct messaging.

In order to so effectively, you need to know exactly who to target, where to find them and what messaging they are most responsive to. Otherwise you are wasting precious time, energy and cash. Getting this right can create a decisive advantage over your opponent.

Gathering and utilizing the necessary data is an expensive, specialised task and it’s importance cannot be understated. It is a staple of the modern political campaign and some say the key determinant in recent elections that blindsided the polls and made a mockery of a media narrative that declared them to be on a knife-edge.

This week, the result of the Labour leadership contest will be announced. The market rates Jeremy Corbyn overwhelming 98% favourite to win at 1.02 but, as announced on Twitter last week, I’m taking no chances and took my 22 unit profit when the odds went to 1.04. Why take the risk when there are party managers trying anything in their power to stop him?

Assuming they don’t succeed, the chances of a fresh start are negligible, to say the least. Judging by the relentless vitriol from both sides – but particularly his Westminster opponents, who have access to the mainstream media – this can only end in a split, or at least the sort of electoral disaster that renders the party irrelevant.

To repeat, I do not regard Jeremy Corbyn as being a potential Prime Minister. Far from it. With Scotland gone for the foreseeable future at least, Labour need to win in parts of England where their brand is toxic, their organisation non-existent and their philosophy despised. Whoever is leader, the only game in town is a long one.

Yet rather than get on with the long haul or attacking the Conservative government (surely page one of any comeback manual), what I call ‘Mainstream Labour’ persist with petty, trivial attacks on their leader.

Corbyn is held to a standard that was never applied to his predecessors, or indeed to any of the possible alternatives for leader.

He’s attacked for being unelectable. But what evidence is there that any of last year’s three rivals were, let alone the hapless Owen Smith? In my view the latter would win no more votes but lose a hundred thousands members.

He’s attacked over the most trivial of issues – his answer to a question about his favourite biscuit or choice of holiday reading material. Rather than giving a genuine answer that reflects his personality – a political anorak that openly doesn’t engage popular culture – they imply he should be more populist.

The implication is that Corbyn should ape Ed Miliband’s widely ridiculed attempt to order a pasty from Greggs. Or Gordon Brown endorsing the Arctic Monkeys. Or tour the country in a pink bus to show he’s on the side of women (a farce that blame-shifting Labour MPs soon forgot when they chose to make Miliband the scapegoat for last May’s defeat).

People still cringe about these PR tragedies yet presumably these nerdy, intellectual Labour leaders fell into the trap after receiving advice from the same ‘professional’ advisers that snipe at Corbyn every day on Twitter? And if Corbyn did go down that route, they would be the first to condemn the opportunism. He’s damned either way.

The Conservatives would never self-destruct like this. David Cameron was a master of publicity stunts that went wrong. Claiming on different occasions to support different football teams is the ultimate PR sin, (and occured in the middle of an election campaign), yet his colleagues and friendly media simply ignored it.

Cameron even had to delay a set-piece conference speech (keeping everyone waiting for an hour) because various critics had pointed out that his pre-released blurb about household debt was economically illiterate. It was barely mentioned again – not even by these same Labour voices that now ruin their own leader over answering a biscuit question wrongly!

On policy, he’s attacked for being too left-wing but in reality, where are the dramatic differences? On domestic issues, they barely exist. He got into some trouble for talking about decriminalising prostitution. Besides that not being in the top hundred important electoral issues, I’m not sure that’s a vote loser.

Where they do disagree, of course, is over foreign policy and nuclear weapons. On the latter, Mainstream Labour are correct to say the English public are not about to vote for a leader that gives up Trident.

But on the former, again Corbyn’s enemies are in denial about the party’s recent history. The Labour rot begun to set in after Tony Blair sent troops into Iraq. Critics like Corbyn were condemned as ‘appeasers’. The Chilcot Report vindicated them, and shamed Blair.

Last week, the Tory-led Foreign Affairs Select Committee condemned Cameron’s rush to war in Libya, enthusiastically backed by most Labour MPs. Again Corbyn rebelled, as with pretty much every vote for war throughout his career.

This is why the two sides hate one another and there is no truce in sight. Labour members are deeply sceptical and sometimes wholly against military action. Most Labour MPs vociferously support it and think Britain should be taking a lead in the Middle East. A circle that cannot be squared and fundamental political question that will inevitably arise again.

Whoever wins the leadership contest, Labour need to get a grip, unite and move forward. It won’t happen. A split or the deselection of MPs is the only realistic answer. We could be looking at a collapse on the scale seen in Scotland.

If you’ve got any spare cash that you don’t mind tying up for a while – potentially four years but it isn’t unimaginable that the next election is sooner – stick it all on the Conservatives to win the most seats at 1.33 with paddypower.com. A money printing job if ever there was one.

There is no precise, scientific means of explaining what determines elections, opinion polls or betting markets. Each election and each candidate is unique, and even the individual voter cannot reliably explain why they react in a certain way.

My belief, held pretty much throughout my adult life based on the experience in England, is that the number one factor is media. Not necessarily editorial bias (although that matters) but narrative created over both long and short-term.

Historically, that has meant that any serious candidate has to win over the mainstream media – in particular TV. Yet this presidential cycle has been so different that many are beginning to disagree. Now it’s all about Twitter, social media and maybe a few friendly outlets that will do your bidding. Donald Trump proves that. I’m pretty sure he thinks so too, as it would explain a lot.

I disagree and think events over the past few days will destroy his bid. Going to war with the media is never a good move. They helped create him and, now he’s pushed them too far, they’ll destroy him.

Back at the start, they thrived on his every word. Or more likely, tweet. In the bizarre, 17 runner horse race that was the GOP primary, his celebrity and headline-grabbing knack of political incorrectness drove previously unimaginable ratings.

By appealing to enough, if not a majority of the GOP base, he sucked up all the media oxygen. Jeb Bush, the only comparably recognisable name, was the perfect establishment target to bully. It was great entertainment.

Whilst the other 15 jockeyed for position, he opened up a commanding lead. By the time they’d whittled down to a manageable number of rivals, capable of being heard whilst scrutinising Trump’s dubious credentials, it was too late.

With the nomination secure, Trump had the floor to himself and set about running the most inept campaign in history, with one gaffe after another. The election became a referendum on an ill-qualified, offensive candidate and the media spotlight merely served to exacerbate his toxicity with a majority of voters.

Consequently without doing anything to enthuse the country or deal with her own fundamental weaknesses, Hillary Clinton became the president-elect, well clear in the polls.

However with that came scrutiny and the moment Trump managed to avoid controversy for a couple of weeks, the gaping holes in Clinton’s case became clear. Hence her recent catastrophic news cycle. Once again, the polls responded to the news cycle and this week Trump erased her longstanding lead.

Now the media had the toss-up contest they craved, the trend begun to flip back. I’ve felt the news cycle was turning against Trump for days – scrutiny into his lack of transparency on health and more importantly, business affairs and tax returns. Then finally yesterday, Trump’s past caught up with him.

It has been something of a mystery how Trump has gone through this entire cycle without anyone pinning him down over the infamous birther theory. Whatever his surrogates or fanatical supporters say, 99% of humanity associates birtherism with Trump. He popularised this conspiracy theory and led the charge.

It isn’t just liberals who see it that way. Less than a year ago, he threw the same attack at Ted Cruz and retweeted this about Cruz and his other main GOP rival Marco Rubio.

There are legions of tweets and TV interviews to prove it, many of which are now doing the rounds. Trying to blame birtherism on Clinton – relentlessly debunked – will only wash with the most on-message Trump supporter. An e-mail from a low grade, anonymous operative is no more Clinton’s responsibility than the picture of Melania that caused such trouble after Wisconsin was the personal responsibility of Cruz.

This line is not going to convince open-minded swing or undecided voters. As with Trump’s revenge attack on Heidi Cruz, persisting with it will only keep the issue alive and rebound on him.

Birtherism alone is not going to determine the election but Trump’s response to the scrutiny may do so. This could have been a straightforward apology and acceptance that he made a mistake. Job done and everyone moves on to more serious issues. This was a brief window when Trump could have pivoted and even tried to claim the centre ground, appearing presidential. It has closed.

Instead, by building a media frenzy, using them for free airtime and then completely failing to deliver, Trump could not have played it any worse. His 34 second, unapologetic statement, merely acknowledging Obama was born in the States, blaming Clinton and refusing to take questions, has made enemies of the overwhelming majority of journalists. The 25 minutes free air-time of veterans endorsing him is a small gain at a potentially massive cost.

This is now about more than politics. Nobody likes being played and they can see how a President Trump would treat the media and the general idea of scrutiny. The furious language and headlines being thrown around by largely neutral organisations – liar, conspiracy theorist, racist, conman – is not business as usual. Even if journalists thought that, they were mostly biting their tongues.

For sure, Trumpians will claim CNN, NBC and the Washington Post are systemically biased against their man. That’s their perspective. I disagree, having watched and read endless scrutiny into Clinton’s e-mails and foundation on those outlets. They’re as imperfect as the BBC, but they try and scrutinise both sides and let them have an equal say.

There’s been a lot of media handwringing about what Trump has been allowed to get away with in the past. Bullying Megyn Kelly and walking away from the Iowa GOP debate. Not raising this explosive birther issue in numerous debates, town halls or interview opportuntities. Failing to meet the same transparency standard as all recent presidential candidates on health and tax. Making pledges on that front, then not delivering.

I think all that changes from now. The media no longer need Trump to drive ratings – at this stage of the cycle, intense public interest is a given. Going after him would be just as good for ratings.

Trump clearly believes he doesn’t need them. That a coalition of Fox News (which isn’t totally beyond criticising him, if nonetheless predictably one-sided), Breitbart and the internet can propel him to the presidency. I don’t buy it. There aren’t enough undecided voters in that pool and anyway, plenty of conservatives are disgusted by birtherism.

Moreover, those one-sided outlets rarely shape the overarching media narrative. If they did, Democrats wouldn’t have won four of the last six presidential elections, and the popular vote in a fifth.

It’s interesting to see John Kasich doing media interviews this week, trying to forge common ground with Obama over trade. As soon as I started doing US media I said he was the most electable GOP candidate and remain convinced that he would have won a landslide against Clinton.

Kasich is the definition of the candidate the middle ground (that decide elections) desires. A pragmatic politician who doesn’t trade in personal insults and can reach across the aisle. The Governor of Ohio says he almost certainly won’t vote for Trump. I wonder if that non-endorsement alone has a negative effect in a state he absolutely must win.

I’ve never wavered from my belief that Clinton would win but there’s no denying the previous week had been a disaster for her. Now it feels like ancient history. I reckon we’ll once again see this changing media narrative affect the polls, Clinton restore her lead and talk of a landslide resume.

We’ve just seen two milestones passed on Betfair’s Next President market. First, the total matched has passed $50M – my estimate is it will go beyond $200M by polling day.

Second and more significantly, Donald Trump has passed another threshold in trading below [3.0]. At [2.96], equivalent to a 34% chance, he’s at his lowest odds yet in response to an unarguably strong run in the polls.

At [1.63], Hillary Clinton is bigger than when I backed her two days ago at [1.57]. I’ll get to that shortly but the key number for me remains how the prospect of ‘others’ is over-rated. The current odds imply there is better than a 6% chance of someone else becoming president – in my view it should be less than 1%.

Some of Trump’s recent momentum is easily explained by Clinton’s shortcomings and a catastrophic news cycle, that culminated in her fainting on Sunday. As explained on Tuesday, I think this is probably her low point and expect improvement over the next week or so.

The news cycle has shifted a bit with more scrutiny of Trump’s comparative lack of transparency regarding tax returns and business interests. Obama’s intervention could make a slight difference and if she bounces back on the campaign trail today, this could easily swing round. My general approach is to cut through the inevitable froth and over-reaction and I remain confident that the fundamentals favour Clinton.

Nevertheless, I must acknowledge other important factors that lie behind this rise. Trump has indisputably improved his performance, especially by using a teleprompter. That means less gaffes and he’s exercising more self-control on Twitter. Given that his opponent is almost as unpopular, that has meant she sucked up the negative publicity for a change.

The other big problem for Clinton is the good numbers for Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, especially among millennials – a key component of the Democrat coalition. I’ve written before how these voters hold the key to the final result and offer Trump his best route to the White House. We’ll see what happens to their share after the debates, assuming Johnson doesn’t get in.

Right now, this is bad news for my positions. I could take an early hit and start again from scratch but still prefer to play the long game.

Regarding strategy going forward, I need the state and electoral college markets to liven up. Whilst I understand why the odds are moving towards Trump, I remain convinced that they represent vastly inferior value compared to less ambitious targets.

The electoral college remains overwhelmingly in Clinton’s favour and this is not accurately factored into the outright odds. Let’s say she were to lose Ohio and Florida – something I’m not assuming but recognise is a real possibility. This still isn’t nearly enough for Trump.

Clinton’s easiest route involves winning NH, WI, CO, VA, PA and MI. The polls, odds and general consensus suggests she is strong favourite in each of them. Then there is the gamechanging state of North Carolina, which Romney won in 2012. If Clinton wins those 15 electoral college votes, we can remove New Hampshire and Wisconsin from the aforementioned firewall (or just Virginia).

We must also remember that Trump has altered the map, bringing other states potentially into play. Arizona, Georgia and Texas are all in-play according to the polls. Given her ground game advantage, she could steal a state or two that Republicans normally take for granted. A much improved Hispanic turnout – not accounted for in polls – changes the maths in several key states.

There are cover bets and new angles to be had at some stage involving these permutations. Watch this space.

Back in January, when asked to list the ten best political betting markets of all time, I took the liberty of pre-empting this year’s presidential cycle. A safe bet that has more than delivered. After the latest bout of market madness, it deserves to be number one.

From the moment news broke about a ‘medical emergency involving Hillary Clinton’ on Sunday morning, the mainstream media, internet and betting markets lost their minds. As I write, they haven’t calmed down. At 1.58 and 3.35 respectively, Clinton and Donald Trump’s combined odds equate to 93% of the book.

In other words, the market rates it 7% likely that the next president is somebody else. This is in my view completely wrong, and reminiscent of the GOP race when speculation about a contested convention left Trump and Ted Cruz at around 80%, despite nobody else being mathematically capable of winning the most delegates.

This is actually much worse, because the contested convention was a realistic possibility, (higher than an 80% chance in the betting at one stage). To get a new candidate in for the presidency now would require a truly miraculous series of events.

Now I’m not a doctor, privy to any inside information or connected to what Sarah Palin calls the ‘lamestream media’, but until somebody actually *proves* to me that Clinton doesn’t have pneumonia, I will ignore the conspiracy theories.

People get sick, especially 67 year-olds with workloads most of us cannot imagine. Given the rumours endlessly fueled by her opponents, it is perfectly logical (and in her nature) that Clinton would want to keep it secret and ‘power through’ as she put it.

It is also perfectly logical that she wouldn’t have wanted to miss the 9/11 service for anything and that extreme heat in NYC would cause great distress (especially if she wasn’t 100%). I’m 23 years younger and in good health, yet two days earlier found the heat in Central Park unbearable.

But regardless of the truth – for I know there are millions of Trump supporters who will never accept that version, and are free to take the other side of the bet – there is nothing to suggest she is pulling out of the race. And when she returns to campaigning this week, she may find that the narrative has turned in her favour.

This time last week, her deeply damaging e-mails were dominating the cycle. Now it’s her ‘deplorable’ comments and pneumonia. When she returns, her narrative will be about being back, fresh and resilient. And the news cycle will move on.

Already, the pressure has now switched to Trump to be more transparent. About his health but even more so his tax returns. Campaign manager Kelly-Anne Conway today hilariously claimed releasing medical records was an invasion of privacy. Yet another gift to the critics and invitation for media criticism.

The founder of LinkedIn has pledged $5M to veteran charities if Trump releases his tax returns. The NYT editor has said he’ll risk prison to publish them. Trump own charitable contributions are under embarrassing scrutiny. All of the other stuff about Trump University and Vladimir Putin is out there too. The scrutiny that I hoped would be placed on Trump in March may have finally arrived.

Even the ‘deplorable’ comments have shifted the debate onto terms that suit Clinton. Fair or not, Trump will be constantly pressured to criticise the most deplorable elements of his support base, such as David Duke.

Many commentators are pointing out that a substantial section of his support are, indeed, racist. Soon the ‘deplorable’ tag may be directed at Trump cheerleaders like Alex Jones of Infowars – he of 9/11, birther, Sandy Hook and Michelle Obama conspiracy theory fame.

This is a much better news cycle for Clinton than the same time last week. Democrats will love Trump being associated with such people. Most Republicans will hate it.

All the while, regardless of that narrative, the fundamentals remain terrible for Trump. The electoral college map is awful, requiring a virtual clean sweep in states where he trails in the polls and is way behind in terms of organisation.

Trump and the Republicans are putting a lot of resources into North Carolina – a state Mitt Romney won and which Trump absolutely must hold to have any chance, yet trails! Meanwhile in the state that may well push Clinton over the line, Obama just hit the campaign trail, dominating headlines with scathing attacks on Trump.

Infinitely stronger Republican candidates have failed to win Pennsylvania since the 1980s. Even the theory that Trump will attract new rust-belt voters doesn’t really stack up. The Philadephia Enquirer reports that, in fact, there are 43,000 more newly registered Democrats than Republicans.

That’s why I’m adding to my substantial existing risk and backing Clinton again at 1.58. There will doubtless be cover bets on this and my other existing positions. I’ll write another piece soon about strategy going forward but for now its time to be brave, beat the curve and take the wrong odds.

Just before leaving for the States last weekend, I met up with Adam Payne from Business Insider UK for an extensive interview. An exciting opportunity, as I love this magazine and it’s willingness to stray from the conventional wisdom of longer established business press when necessary.

We discussed my 15 year career as a professional gambler, how I got into political betting and some of my most successful markets. That included Conservative Party leadership contests from the previous decade and, more recently, my successful betting plans on Jeremy Corbyn for Labour leader and Brexit.

She’s been the overwhelming favourite to succeed Barack Obama since Betfair’s Next President market opened, and is the shortest priced ever at this stage of a US election cycle. She couldn’t have handpicked a more toxic opponent than Donald Trump, and enjoys a massive advantage in terms of campaign organisation. Yet Democrats are getting worried that Hillary Clinton has not sealed the deal yet, and momentum is slowly shifting towards Trump.

Clinton’s poll lead has shrunk since securing a massive bounce following the Democrat Convention, even disappearing altogether in some polls, and the market has moved accordingly. From a peak of 1.26, equivalent to an 79% likelihood, the former First Lady is now out to 1.47 (68%) and her backers are nervously awaiting to see the fallout from a <strong>terrible weekend news cycle.

Her problems clearly pre-date Friday’s comments that half of Trump’s supporters were a ‘basket of deplorables’ – eerily reminiscent of Mitt Romney’s 47 per cent gaffe that was widely assumed to have hurt his 2012 bid. Rather the damage is primarily the result of nearly two years of investigation into her private e-mails and the scrutiny hasn’t stopped yet.

Judging by the immediate reaction on social media, I wasn’t alone in finding Wednesday’s NBC Commander In Chief forum a profoundly depressing affair. On the worst interpretation, both Clinton and Trump were allowed to tell straightforward lies. At best, highly dubious comments went unscrutinised.

Trump’s claim that he was always against the 2003 Iraq war (citing an Esquire interview from 2004!) has been debunked so many times that one wonders why he dares to persist. Perhaps lightweight moderator Matt Lauer’s silence offers the answer.

Likewise Clinton’s promise to not send in ground troops to Iraq or Syria – when plenty are already there – was extraordinary, especially given that she was addressing veterans. Numerous fact-checking sites debunked both answers and several more. It doesn’t bode well for the TV debates, although hopefully Lauer’s humiliation will encourage moderators to grow a pair.

I’ll be surprised if many votes were swung. Predictably, Trump fans pointed to Clinton lies and complained of media bias against their hero. Ditto, Clintonites were aghast that Trump had yet again managed to get away with a bare-faced lie in a presidential debate.

U.S. politics is incredibly polarized and when the mainstream media are repeatedly guilty of such dereliction of duty, it is no wonder the audience are drawn to ever more partisan post-truth websites. With every day, voters seem to be becoming more entrenched.

One moment did stand out, however, as having significance for the race ahead, with the potential to swing votes. Trump’s praise of Vladimir Putin was jaw-dropping and could prove to be his biggest gift yet to the Democrats.

It played perfectly into their narrative that the Russian President is trying to subvert the election towards Trump. With the FBI already investigating, Obama raising it at the G20 and hacker Julian Assange threatening more revelations about Clinton, this story will run and run. Trump’s comments will be highlighted ad nauseum in wall-to-wall attack ads.

Moreover, it will encourage more scrutiny of Trump’s deeply controversial NATO policy – which would suit Putin – and prompt further questions about Russian business interests. Again, Trump’s failure to produce transparent financial and tax records provides an open invitation for Clinton to claim he has something to hide.

Given that, outside a small, unrepresentative band of white nationalists, Putin remains as loathed in the States as any ex-KGB Russian leader, this is electoral madness. This is just about the worst possible tactic to employ when Trump needs to bring GOP sceptics on board.

Don’t be surprised if the effect is to encourage more Republicans to endorse either Clinton, Gary Johnson or Evan McMullin. (Although Johnson’s failure to know where or what Aleppo is probably put paid to his hopes of winning over Trump’s foreign policy critics).

With around 60% of the electorate viewing Trump unfavourably, (over 40% strongly so), he cannot afford to lose potential supporters like these. Notably, Mike Pence doubled down today on Trump’s statement that Putin is a better leader than Obama. I simply cannot see how this works in their favour.

Sure, most Republicans hate Obama, but the current president has a solid 50% approval rating. He is certain to hit the campaign trail hard, and showed how effective his attacks on Trump could be at the convention. My instinct is that Clinton’s post-convention bounce owed more to the Obamas than either her or Bill’s performances.

And yet, that convention bounce has disappeared, confirming once again what a flawed candidate she is. There has been a definite trending towards Trump in the past fortnight as he behaved more like a normal candidate and for once, allowed Clinton to suck up all that negative publicity.

By bringing Putin, Russia and all those serious questions about his own foreign policy to the fore, Trump may have brought that positive spell to an end.

This weekend’s anniversary of 9/11 will doubtless bring Trump’s ridiculous comments into focus again. How George W Bush was negligent, how it wouldn’t have happened on his watch and his repeatedly debunked lie that Muslims celebrated in New Jersey. Don’t be surprised if those positive poll trends move into reverse.

Here’s my recent interview with the excellent betting advice site www.secretbettingclub.com. In it, we discuss the growth of political betting and how to make it pay, including my historical record across a range of markets in both the UK and USA.

We discuss past leadership contests, general elections and Brexit, along with my analysis of the ongoing US election and Labour leadership contest.

There’s also some advice regarding where to look and how to collate information useful for predicting political markets, such as the best sites to follow from each perspective.

In terms of both opinion polls and sentiment on Betfair markets, the race for the presidency is closing fast. Hillary Clinton remains the strongest favourite at this stage of a US election this century, but a bad couple of weeks has seen her odds drift back to roughly where they were in July, before gaining a big bounce following the Democratic Convention.

The former First Lady is now rated 68% likely to win, at odds of 1.47. Donald Trump has shortened to 3.4, equivalent to a 29% rating. There is still plenty of time for things to change, though, as voters are believed to only begin to take a closer look after Labor Day.

With that benchmark now passed, the media is awash with negative stories about both candidates. The potential remains for either campaign to hit a full-blown crisis should any of them take a turn for the worse, particularly these five.

Will the e-mail scandal derail Clinton with a late bombshell?

Clinton’s improper use of a private e-mail server whilst Secretary of State may be old news but revelations continue to seep out to damaging effect. It is too early to say precisely why her convention bounce has disintegrated but the explanation probably lies here.

After a generally disastrous run ever since becoming the presumptive nominee, Donald Trump has just enjoyed a good week. Though still trailing in the polls and historically weak on Betfair markets, both of those indicators have moved in his favour. At odds of 4.0, he’s now rated 25% likely to be Next President, up from 20%.

Some relief, then, for Trump backers who must have been wondering whether he was running out of time to turn things around. Entering <strong>Labor Day</strong> weekend – historically regarded as the starting gun for the main campaign, when voters start to get really engaged – Trump’s poll deficit is not irreversible, as this analysis explains.

Nevertheless, it remains a very tall order, especially with some polls suggesting 90% have already made their minds up. At the very least, to turn around an average 5% deficit, Trump needs to significantly alter the election narrative.

This week’s mini-comeback is probably due to Hillary Clinton for once enduring a worse news cycle, as damaging revelations about her emails continue to seep out. However as anyone who has been watching will know, this is not typical of the last 14 months. The media cannot help talking about Trump, and he can’t help giving them endless material to work with. Love or hate him, Trump is undeniably interesting and his presence has turned the entire election into a referendum on him.

Not a great scenario for a candidate whose approval ratings are deep underwater, particularly among women and minorities. A belated recognition of this fundamental problem likely explain recent attempts to adopt a softer tone about his signature issue – immigration. Though not necessarily the most salient election issue, it is pivotal to Trump’s image and his main talking point.

As illustrated in previous portfolios, my betting plans are not necessarily based on taking a definitive prediction about the result or, in some cases, even taking much of a risk.

Rather, the game is to set up a position that is predicted to improve on betting markets over time. Even better, hedge multiple markets against one another, therefore taking a ‘wrong’ price. So long as the position is strong at the final count, profit can be secured then by covering the overall portfolio.

Brexit offered the perfect example. My strong view throughout was that it would be very close, therefore making a narrow Remain win excellent trading value. Even if Remain had surrendered favouritism, the odds about a narrow Remain win would have fallen.

The best trade in that portfolio was a loser – when I hedged between two markets to take 11.0 about Remain getting anywhere between 50 and 52.5%. As soon as the early results were declared, it became clear that securing a profit would be easy – backing the side of the line that was in play, either over 52.5 or under 50 (Leave).

I have similar plans for the US election, about which there is a definitive, confident prediction. For at least the seven reasons laid out last month and the past year, Hillary Clinton will win. I have a substantial risk open on a Trump win, which could be closed for profit. I’m not interested.

Without going through all the reasons again, the most striking regards the electoral college. Even if Trump does turn his poor campaign around, even if Clinton is damaged by e-mail revelations, he would still face an almighty task to get 270 electoral college votes.

The latest Realclearpolitics map projects Clinton on 272 – over the line, even before 112 votes in the 9 toss-up states are decided. I challenge any Trump backer to explain how he wins every toss-up, then takes one from the ‘leans Clinton’ box.

But let’s play along. Any route involves Florida, Ohio and North Carolina – which aren’t in the Clinton column yet but where she consistently leads. In each case, Trump is at least 3.0 (33%) on Betfair.

So if you were going to back Trump for the presidency at [4.7], it would make more sense to instead spread the stake three ways at 3.0 in each state. That way, you only need one of them to cover the outlay and he could quite plausibly win all three, yet lose the presidency.

As we get closer, there will be countless combo/hedge opportunities – between Betfair’s electoral college votes market and either state betting or handicap lines. Betfair have a Trump +24.5 line already but liquidity is weak. In time, that will improve and new lines will open up, hopefully with a variety betting firms.

With those later options in mind, Trump is still a great value lay at 4.8. If the electoral college market is a guide, Clinton is about 1.75 (57%) to get 330 electoral college votes. So in theory we could lay the two high bands there as a cover, creating a ‘middle’ of 270 – 329 where both bets win. At current odds, this hedge plan equates to a bet around 4.6 (22%).

In my view that 1.75 will shorten over the next few weeks, so for now I’m just having one side of the bet – laying Trump at 4.8. Eventually I will cover but let’s wait and see what other options become available. It may be that the best cover is just to back a few key states as explained above. If I’m wrong, I can always get out with a loss. It would take a dramatic, sustained swing for Trump to assume favouritism.

Finally lest we forget, as we’re laying Trump rather than backing Clinton or her margin of victory, we would win were Trump to withdraw early. Highly unlikely, but an outcome that I’ve been determined to keep on side from the start!

From the moment 17 Republican candidates headed by a reality TV star kickstarted the process, the 2016 election cycle has been unique and unpredictable. With fewer than 80 days remaining, markets point to a one-sided contest yet both adjectives still apply.

Betfair punters will be used to the straight-up, binary choice available in the three US elections since our inception in 2001. This time around, as many as five candidates are garnering news coverage.

Whereas the Republican and Democrat nominees accounted for over 98% of the vote in 2004, 2008 and 2012, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are averaging only 88% combined in polls. When Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are added to the question, that shrinks to 79%.

In short, a fifth of the US electorate remains unattached to either Trump or Clinton, despite a lifetime in the media spotlight. The latest NBC poll showed Johnson and Stein on 16% combined, despite Americans knowing relatively nothing about them.

Considering both ran in 2012 and won less than 1%, this is a significant breakthrough, with the potential to grow. Were either to reach an average of 15%, they would get into the TV debates. Against two historically unpopular candidates, with the electorate more volatile than ever, that could have a gamechanging effect.

Four years ago, at this stage of the 2012 presidential cycle, there was a stark difference between clear betting market signals and a commentariat loathe to jump off the fence. Whereas pundits were saying en masse that the race was ‘too close to call’, Betfair punters consistently made Barack Obama the odds-on favourite to beat Mitt Romney, progressively so after the conventions.

One of the reasons for that difference was surely an understanding of the electoral system. Each state’s vote translates into a pre-determined number of electors based on population and congressional districts, that count towards the electoral college. In total, there are 538 electors up for grabs, making 270 the winning target. For full, up to the minute projections, check out RealClearPolitics map, based on an aggregate of state polls

As I reported even before the 2012 conventions, the map spelt trouble for Romney, who was trailing pretty much everywhere it mattered. Not a great deal changed between June and November, and Obama ended up winning a landslide with 332 electoral college votes.

While 2012 is a race that Republicans want to forget, they would swap Romney’s post-convention position for that of Donald Trump in an instant. Not only are his national ratings dire but Trump is performing catastrophically in the swing states.

Indeed Hillary Clinton is a much stronger favourite than Obama – the shortest odds of any at this stage since the inception of Betfair – yet on reading the electoral map, is probably a good value bet even at 1.28, which equates to a 78% likelihood. She has already been matched down to 1.85 (54%) to win 360 or more Electoral College Votes – at least 28 more than Obama.

The decision of UK voters to quit the European Union did not just send shockwaves through British politics. The world was watching, seeking to understand what it may signify for their own futures. Indeed, it was widely seen as the latest demonstration of an anti-establishment trend sweeping across the Western world.

In particular, as I’ve found in numerous Stateside interviews, Americans want to know if this reflects a rise in populist nationalism that will lead to the unlikeliest candidate in their history taking the presidency in November.

On at least a superficial level, there are similarities between Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump. Anger towards mass immigration and free trade deals. Distrust of institutions and the mainstream media. The idea that nations have been in decline. Just as the Leave campaign urged Britons to ‘Take Back Control’ of their country, Trump’s slogan is ‘Make America Great Again’.

Brexit also represented a massive shock in betting terms, puncturing the theory that political markets are the ultimate indicator of elections. Leave was given only a 10% chance, trading around 1.1 when polls closed. If a clear correlation between the two votes can be found, 5.0 (20%) about Trump could represent great value.

My view, however, is that punters should be wary of reading too much into Brexit. Rather than ignoring the numerous reasons to oppose Trump, laid out on these pages last week, consider the following five factors.

1) Referendums are fundamentally different from conventional elections

Voters are perfectly capable of distinguishing between a referendum on a profound national question and the party or individual choices on offer at conventional elections. They may very well be angry about immigration and sceptical about free trade, but choosing a government involves countless extra considerations.

As a gambler, one must always be mindful of talking up your own position. Of becoming too convinced by your own opinion that you can’t see the wood for the trees.

I’ve been wrestling with this position for months, regarding the unprecedented, bizarre and increasingly ridiculous candidacy of Donald Trump.

My longstanding opposition to Trump is not based on politics – no serious gambler can let politics affect their judgement. Rather, it’s about basic credibility, competence and electability. It has been clear for several years that the Republican base were sick of the Washington establishment and wanted an outsider. Yet in Ted Cruz, they had a far more authentic and serious outsider, who actually knew how to ‘do’ politics.

When Cruz dropped out of the race, I still felt it was worth taking a punt at massive odds that he would be blocked at the convention, via the Rules Committee changing the criteria. It didn’t come off but, less than a month on, it is crystal clear that they should have freed the delegates, allowing them to vote their conscience.

At 18%, Trump is not only the biggest outsider ever at this stage of a presidential race, but given a smaller chance than he was after Super Tuesday, when still well short of the required delegates. Yesterday, Trump’s campaign hit a new low by mooting the idea that Hillary Clinton might be assassinated.

Never mind any attempt to ‘reset’ his campaign, to talk about economic policy and tax plans. This is now the biggest story in town, set to dominate the news cycle in the same way attacks on a Gold Star family, Judge Curiel and Heidi Cruz did.

The number of Republicans prepared to defend their nominee – already historically small – is dwindling further. Unlike the failed convention coup, this isn’t just the #NeverTrump movement. See this from Joe Scarborough of ‘Morning Joe’ fame. During the primaries, he was closer to Trump than most and even mooted as a potential running mate.

Could it happen? Well, the process of actually replacing him is fraught with complexity and legal hurdles in each state. He could of course withdraw, although that remains a longshot. Likelier, however, than enormous odds about potential replacements suggests.

There is an active #RecallTrump movement, who argue they have found a legal basis to dump the candidate. Expect their numbers to grow in the aftermath of his latest comments – which past form suggests he’ll double down on, raising their newsworthiness.

As with the nomination, Paul Ryan is rated by far the likeliest alternative at around [80.0]. John Kasich has come into 380.0 – thus rekindling a little excitement about this position taken at 240.0 before the primaries.

Much more obvious is his running mate. Mike Pence is finding himself at odds with Trump on an almost daily basis and, with his name already on the ballot, is surely the natural alternative. I was amazed to see him trading at 1000.0 for the presidency this morning before the odds fell.

After his assassination comments & yet more dire polls, the remote chance of #NeverTrump must be rising. I've backed Mike Pence at 1000.

At 690.0, he’s still well worth a speculative trade. Remember, Ryan was backed down to 14 for the nomination when the idea of a coup first took hold.

If not Pence, then I like Scott Walker at 1000. It was reported post-convention that one of the plans put forward by plotters was for Ted Cruz to endorse Walker. In my view, he is the one they should have put forward as a unity candidate months ago.

If speculation does grow and the market reacts, also expect to see bits of money for Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush and Cruz – the three heavyweights who have consistently called out and refused to support Trump.

As with those pre-convention bets, I’m not going to add any of these longshot bets to the published portfolio because liquidity at these prices is small and I can’t guarantee followers will get on at anywhere near the recommended odds.

The idea that a celebrity, reality TV star could become US President always seemed faintly ridiculous – until Donald Trump defied the commentariat and betting odds to win the Republican nomination.

Betfair punters take a similarly dim view about his general election chances, rating him only 22% likely to beat Hillary Clinton at odds of 4.6 but could everyone be wrong again? My confident conclusion is no, for at least these seven reasons…

1. Republican primary voters are not representative of the wider electorate

While he won 14m primary votes, Trump will need nearly five times as many in November, tapping a very different pool. The type of swing voter that determines national elections always differs from those motivated to turn out in primaries. They are less partisan, hold a more balanced worldview and often only engage the process during the final few weeks.

In this extreme case, they are miles apart. Even in the key states where Trump performed best – Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida – he is trailing Clinton by big margins. By enthusing a substantial minority with his maverick candidacy, he changed the maths and make up of the GOP electorate, but that does not reflect a wider change in US opinion.

Consider this one simple measure. President Obama usually records an approval rating above 50%. By definition, Trump needs to win some of these voters, despite repeatedly smearing Obama and declaring his era a disaster. Having laughed off Trump’s infamous ‘birther’ theory, Obama is now on the front foot, labelling Trump ‘woefully unprepared’ and calling on Republicans to dump him.

2. A head-to-head with Clinton is far less suitable for Trump than the 17-strong GOP cage fight

Sceptics of my longstanding, confident prediction that Hillary Clinton will beat Donald Trump in November often ask the same question – “He’s got this far despite you all writing him off, so why can’t Trump prove you all wrong again?”.

The question is unarguably valid. Like so many others, I simply couldn’t envisage Trump lasting the distance during the primaries. It was one thing to pose as an outsider, in tune with the Republican base. Quite another to put some meaning to that vague brand, build coherent policies and fight a disciplined, organised campaign.

As it turned out, Trump didn’t need any of the latter substance. By dominating the headlines, Trump made the old political rules redundant, turning the primaries into referenda on him. Even though a large percentage of Republicans were never convinced and less than half supported him, just holding a net favourable position against a crowded field was enough to win most primaries.

By crowding out his rivals and undermining them with smears, Trump prevented them from getting an alternative message across. Ted Cruz ran a textbook campaign, only to be blown away by the cult of celebrity.

Lest we forget, the Cruz plan was to befriend Trump, then sweep up his voters when the celebrity candidate imploded. Yet all they heard was ‘Lyin Ted’, ‘CalculaTed’, the ‘anchor baby’ whose wife worked for Goldman Sachs and whose dad was involved in the JFK assassination.

Subsequently the true outsider, whose policy agenda should be perfectly in tune with angry, revolutionary-minded Trump supporters was booed throughout his convention speech while Heidi was ushered out by security. Substance never came into it. If Trump can destroy Cruz like that – not to mention ‘Little Marco’ and ‘Low-energy Jeb’ – why not ‘Crooked Hillary’?

Here’s why. A General Election is nothing like the primaries. The voters are different, with different values and concerns. The media ask different, harder questions, for longer. The opposition hold absolutely nothing back in attacks. We are seeing signs already that Trump could be utterly destroyed in such an arena.

Remember that the Republican race was unique, and it is unlikely that Trump could have won in any other scenario. 17 candidates meant for the first six months, the only voice gaining traction was Trump.

He was underestimated by his rivals. When Cruz and Rubio should have been attacking Trump, they went after each other – wrongly identifying their principal threat. By the time they finally woke up to Trump’s staying power – just before Super Tuesday – it was too late.

In the infamous Miami debate, Rubio threw one bomb after another, while Cruz effectively scrutinised Trump’s total lack of policy coherence. In response, Trump shouted back as many insults as he received. Only the most dedicated of GOP watcher could possibly have kept up with it all, while the average swing voter in Philadelphia probably turned off in disgust (if they were watching at all).

Nevertheless as I argued at the time, those belated attacks did hurt Trump. He underperformed on Super Tuesday expectations and more or less stalled throughout March. A brokered convention became plausible and #NeverTrump was formed.

Trump, however, shrewdly swerved any more debates and the scrutiny slowed until Wisconsin in early April. There, Trump was exposed during a series of set-piece interviews and duly thrashed in the primary. His response to defeat – attacking Heidi Cruz’s appearance on Twitter – should have been the final warning signal about what his campaign would look like.

However, it was too late to reverse the primary process and the GOP establishment reluctantly endorsed, if not wholly embraced, their presumptive nominee. Perhaps they hoped that Trump was actually playing a smart game during the primaries, and would pivot in order to court his new general election audience.

After three months as the presumptive nominee and a catastrophic fortnight since the convention, it is clear that Trump is incapable of such a pivot. The controversies seem to get worse on a weekly basis – from racist remarks about Judge Curiel to attacking a Gold Star family. Most damagingly, his total lack of foreign policy knowledge is being exposed as questions are asked about Russia, Putin and NATO.

All the other scandals have slipped down the news order, although we can be sure that Democrat attack ads will remind every swing voter in the land ad nauseum. Clinton will vastly outspend Trump in that regard.

On past form, it will push anything negative about Clinton – a flawed, beatable candidate – aside and turn the election into a referendum on Trump. Not a good move when the majority already hold an unfavourable view.

I’m very wary of overstating just how attentive these swing voters have been to date. Normally in elections, the undecideds are less engaged early, tending only to focus on detail when the decision becomes imminent. The signs aren’t good. Trump’s convention speech went down worse than any in history and no neutral observer could deny the last few days have been disastrous.

Far from being on the verge of turning around the polls he describes as ‘phoney’, I suspect Trump is polling near his peak already. The greater the scrutiny, the more serious the campaign becomes, the worse he’ll fare. We are looking at a Clinton landslide.

The predictive qualities of political betting markets have become an ever more salient talking point in recent years, based on a near perfect record in big elections. Since the inception of Betfair in 2001, the favourite from 100 days out to be Next President or party to win the most seats went on to win in every US or UK General Election.

That reputation took a knock when UK voters opted for Brexit in what turned out to be the biggest market of all-time but, as we enter the closing stretch of the US election, there is an immediate chance of redemption. With the 100 day threshold passed, Hillary Clinton remains an overwhelmingly strong favourite at 1.43, which equates to a 70% probability.

Those odds make Clinton the strongest ever favourite at this stage. Four years ago, Barack Obama was trading around 1.64, slightly longer than the same stage in 2008. In 2004, George W Bush headed a much tighter race. From around 1.8 at this stage, Bush even surrendered favouritism to John Kerry during the campaign and even on election night, before eventually winning well.

With the confirmation of both candidates at the party conventions, the second and final stage of the US Presidential Election is underway. A wide array of new, interesting markets have just opened on Betfair – including state betting and the distribution of electoral college votes.

From now, with several UK political markets now settled and my busy summer sports schedule drawing to a close, the US election is my primary focus – I’ll be back in the States by the end of August. Before we get into that, though, let’s update the markets now settled and our bets going forward. My latest position was announced on Twitter on Friday.

First, the Vice Presidential markets yielded a total of 54 units profit. 59 on the GOP side after backing Mike Pence; 5 units loss on the Democrats after backing Tom Perez.

So far as the main nominations are concerned, we made 87 units profit on Donald Trump becoming the Republican nominee although, as regular readers will know, this was a disappointing outcome given huge positions on Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan. Both enabled a profit to be secured, but the dream scenario of a brokered convention never materialised.

I didn’t play the Democrat nominee market as I always believed Hillary Clinton would win but her odds were always extremely prohibitive. Instead, some trades on her and Bernie Sanders in the Next President market secured 14 units profit. That sum forms part of the updated profit and loss table listed below.

All of my published advice is listed here in the complete election betting portfolio. So far, I’ve made 156 units profit but, as you can see, a Donald Trump presidency could wipe it all out and more. If you’re following my bets, don’t worry. I remain very confident!

The first stage of the US Presidential Election betting cycle is finally complete. With Donald Trump and Mike Pence confirmed as the Republican ticket last week in Cleveland, Hillary Clinton named Virginia Senator Tim Kaine as her running mate last night, ahead of the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia.

While these veepstakes are always a hot source of speculation and make for great betting markets – Pence was matched beyond 100.0, while Kaine’s peak was a much more predictable 7.4 – it isn’t clear from recent elections that they make much meaningful difference to the main race for the presidency.

Joe Biden certainly helped Barack Obama, bringing foreign policy expertise to the ticket and negating his inexperience, but there was never any suggestion that he swung the result.

Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin helped unite sceptical conservatives behind Mitt Romney and John McCain but could not avert defeats driven by wider reasons. The former couldn’t even deliver his home state of Wisconsin.

However we’ve seen already that history is less relevant than usual throughout this unique cycle and, arguably, this year’s running mates may carry a greater burden of responsibility. Both Pence and Kaine have one particularly pressing challenge – to help detoxify historically unpopular candidates.

The most unconventional and unlikely presidential candidate in US history just hit his highest rating yet in the race for the White House. In finally securing the Republican nomination, Donald Trump killed the hopes of numerous detractors and ended one of the most exciting and dramatic races in the history of political betting.

In response, Betfair punters backed the reality TV star into his shortest odds yet to win in November. Though still the outsider, Trump has been backed down to 3.0, equivalent to a 33% chance, before falling back slightly to 3.35 (30%). Hillary Clinton, favourite for this market ever since it opened in 2012, remains strong at 1.45 or 69%.

In keeping with the rest of his short political career, even Trump’s coronation as GOP candidate was far from straightforward, right to the last.

In the weeks leading up to Corbyn’s surprise entry, online campaigns were launched to find a better candidate – Lisa Nandy and Keir Starmer for example. Neither took the bait and Corbyn filled the vacuum.

Corbyn only got on the ballot paper after a Twitterstorm from members and supporters, demanding a wider range of views at a time when the party was locked in introspection following the disastrous General Election. In lending him some nominations, mainstream MPs terribly misjudged the mood of the grassroots.

Immediately, a challenge on core Labour values presented itself, with George Osborne timing his welfare cuts bill to maximum, divisive effect. When the three mainstream candidates abstained, it seemed to legitimise a frequent charge that MPs had lost touch with basic Labour aims and values, and were more concerned with positioning than principle. From that moment on, Corbyn was dominant.

One might think Corbyn’s numerous opponents would have learnt something but, on the basis of this leadership contest, that isn’t the case. With all due respect to Owen Smith and Angela Eagle, who on earth decided they were the best alternatives?

However it looks like Labour MPs are making all the same mistakes. It appears that they are going to overwhelmingly nominate Smith, despite him being unscrutinised and never mentioned by anyone as a future leader until a few days ago.

As with Corbyn’s 2015 rivals, issues could be his undoing. Though Smith is defining himself as a left-winger, who loyally served under Corbyn, his profile tells a different story.

It is a stone-cold certainty that these historic positions will be thrown at him during the contest by opponents and the media. Fairly or not, he will be labelled a ‘Blairite’ – a toxic term amongst Labourites that resulted in Liz Kendall (arguably a better candidate) getting just 4% last year.

In the next few days, those divisions will rise to the fore, regardless of the leadership contest. MPs are due to vote on renewing the Trident nuclear deterrant, and Smith will be one of the rebels voting against Corbyn, alongside the Tory government. He even said today that he’d be prepared to fire a nuclear weapon if necessary.

Then there is Smith’s big new position – to campaign for a second EU referendum. In two or three years, that could look like smart politics but right now it looks opportunistic and anti-democratic. Given the MPs’ disregard for Corbyn’s huge mandate, one can almost hear Andrew Neil’s line of questioning – “What exactly is it you hate about democracy?”

Therein lies the problem. Smith is unknown and undefined. In some cases that can be an asset when a party is in the mood for change – see David Cameron’s leadership campaign in 2005. Here though, it is more likely to increase focus on all his negatives and Smith will be unable to produce a record to defend himself.

The rebels will have been buoyed by more terrible poll news for Corbyn in head-to-heads with Theresa May, proving their central argument that he is unelectable. But what happens to that argument when, in a few weeks, polls show Smith and/or Eagle faring no better or even worse? That is precisely what happened in last year’s contest.

The job of reclaiming the party is huge and requires a big beast to spearhead it. Yet, in keeping with previous contests, they just aren’t interested.

Alan Johnson would be perfect, just as he would have been a superior pick to Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown, only to sit on his hands. Chuka Umunna has shown no interest since withdrawing from last year’s contest – one he may well have won if prepared to face down press intrusion. It is bizarre that Tom Watson ceded responsibility to Angela Eagle – whom he thrashed in the deputy race.

Whilst I remain open-minded and loathe to have a big bet on the contest, as I’m awaiting for clarifications of rules and runners, my instinct is increasingly that Corbyn will win or should at least start at shorter odds than 1.92. Hence this morning’s advice on Twitter.

In addition to the imminent contest, I’m having a few big-priced plays on the Next Labour Leader market. If Corbyn remains leader, these bets still stand and presumably the question won’t come up for a couple of years at least. During that time, new faces will rise.

The trio that interest me are Lisa Nandy, Stephen Kinnock and Clive Lewis. The case for the first pair was laid out earlier, and Lewis has since entered my calculations.

The new Shadow Defence Secretary, who served in Afghanistan, would be perfectly poised to succeed Corbyn if the Left does inherit the party. He’s articulate, thoughtful and will become a regular face on TV now he’s in the Shadow Cabinet.

If Corbyn wins, Lewis could be a bridge to mainstream MPs and end up being a unity candidate. On first impressions, he seems infinitely more electable than Corbyn or John McDonnell!

Unfortunately there is only limited liquidity on this market, so I can’t really offer specific trading advice. I’ve been taking around 26.0 for Lewis and 70.0 for Nandy and Kinnock.

In the week when the Conservative Party united in order to usher in a new Prime Minister, their arch enemies seem hell-bent on ensuring Theresa May will face no meaningful opposition in parliament. With their leadership contest up and running, Labour are now committed to a summer of in-fighting that could well destroy the party.

Historical analogies with the 1980s are correctly doing the rounds. A female Tory leader dominating British politics while Labour split in two. Whether the losing side actually join or start a different party like the Gang of Four did when forming the SDP in 1981 remains to be seen, but the splits are equally fierce and wounds will be near impossible to heal.

Back in those days, the machinations and decisions of Labour’s National Executive Council were significant national news. So it was once again on Tuesday, when the political world awaited their ruling that Jeremy Corbyn had an automatic right to be on the ballot paper. So it will again next Tuesday, when Corbyn’s supporters seek to water down changes to the registration and voting process that they believe are rigged against their man.

The latest development is the confirmation of a third candidate, thus livening up what many believed would be a one-sided Corbyn victory over Angela Eagle. On throwing his hat in the ring, Owen Smith swiftly assumed favouritism at 1.9, equivalent to a 53% ratong, before slipping back to 2.2 (45%). Corbyn is an even money 2.0 chance with Eagle friendless at 15.0 (7%).

With confirmation that Hillary Clinton will not be indicted and with a few days until the long-winded plans to strip Donald Trump from the Republican nomination are almost certainly defeated, the big story involves their respective VP picks.

Trump goes first in Cleveland next week and speculation continues to circle about numerous candidates, even at this late stage. Earlier this week, Trump said there were around ten names under consideration.

Allowing for the caveat that he may not be telling the truth – the master of self-publicity has demonstrated a unique ability to get the media discussing him on a loop – ten does sound plausible. Many have ruled themselves out, including his main rivals from the primaries and, just this week, Senators Joni Ernst and Bob Corker.

Working on the dubious assumption that neither Ernst or Corker were on that final shortlist, let’s try and name the ten in contention.

Sadly, as is so often the case in gambling, a great win was followed by an unmitigated disaster. I’ve long argued that, unlike sports, political betting was not prone to freak occurrences. Yet this time, the shocking implosion of Boris Johnson’s bid for the Tory leadership was the equivalent of a well fancied horse being left at the starting gate. 80 units down the drain without even a run!

It is not all bad news, as I still have a couple long-term positions on Theresa May at 10, which I strongly expect to win. But the short-term damage is done and will be hard to repair.

Right now at least, there seems little point in adding any new bets. May is by far and away the standout candidate, and Johnson’s exit leaves her in an unassailable position. She already had a big lead amongst the members who will ultimately decide and it now seems unimaginable that she wouldn’t make the final two.

Her rivals either lack the experience or ability to unify the party at this crucial time. Michael Gove is a more divisive figure than ever after the Boris backstabbing. Stephen Crabb and Andrea Leadsom are both strong candidates with a big future, but cannot compete with May on experience – which has never been a more salient quality than during this leadership election.

If the odds look like fluctuating, I may re-enter this market but for now, I can’t see past May.

In contrast, the Labour leader market and Jeremy Corbyn’s future should offer plenty of opportunities throughout the summer. I’ll write more soon but for now, I have three live bets. A couple of months ago, Tom Watson and Stephen Kinnock were advised, and last week I tweeted a 5 unit lay of David Miliband at 11. If you missed it then, the odds are still available and advice still stands.

New bet on Labour leader: Laid (opposed) David Miliband 5 units at 11.0 (9%). A truly awful price! New piece coming very soon.

Favouritism for the Conservative Leadership race has been switching back and forth between Boris Johnson and Theresa May all day. At one stage May went down to 2.34 (43%) but tonight Johnson is back in front at 2.3 (43%) to her odds of 3.1 (32%). I think this is right, and managed to jump aboard the bandwagon at 2.5 (40%), as advised on Twitter.

New bet on Next Tory Leader: 80 units Boris Johnson @ 2.5. Endorsements from Remainers make him sure to reach the final 2.

Here’s why. First and foremost, it appears certain that he’ll reach the final, head-to-head run-off, where Tory members will ultimately decide. It is by no means certain that he’ll win that finale but in that scenario it’s very hard to imagine him being any bigger than 2.5. He could, of course, be regarded a certainty and be something like 1.2.

Second, he will certainly be the most prominent Brexit supporter, and possibly the only one in the race. Andrea Leadsom is reportedly undecided and she could potentially throw a spanner in the works of this theory, but I wouldn’t mind a punt that she backs Boris, perhaps with a view to becoming his Chancellor. Liam Fox has also been mentioned but would be a big outsider.

138 of their 330 MPs backed Leave and their block vote is enough alone to guarantee a place in the last two. However several Remain supporters have come out and endorsed Johnson today – Nicholas Soames, Liz Truss and Nicholas Boles.

If as discussed earlier, George Osborne makes a deal in exchange for a top job, he could bring plenty more with him. With each one, Johnson’s claim to be the unity candidate his party craves is enhanced. I wouldn’t overestimate hostility from Remain supporters among the ranks of Tory MPs – many or even most were regarded as Eurosceptic when elected, just like David Cameron.

This is the general nature of leadership races. The presumed front-runner bags dozens of endorsements from ambitious types, keen to go onside with the winning team early. The market responds accordingly. If as I expect, Boris wins the first round of voting, he should go heavily odds-on.

None of this is to say Boris doesn’t have weaknesses, nor that there is an ‘Anyone but Boris’ vote. I just wonder how large it is and, now the promising Stephen Crabb is in the race, May is unlikely to dominate that vote in the first round. Plus his weakness – lack of detail and seriousness – is to some extent negated by the close support of Michael Gove.

Political bettors have never had it so good. No sooner have we drawn breath, following the most significant vote in living memory and the biggest market in political betting history, than we are presented with concurrent leadership contests for the two biggest posts in UK politics.

The facts we know are literally changing by the minute, and markets responding accordingly. While we await confirmation and details of the Labour contest, the timetable to find David Cameron’s successor is now clear, and the contenders increasingly so.

Today’s big news, albeit widely expected, is that George Osborne will not run. Good news for those who followed my advice to lay Osborne when favourite several months ago, and for punters holding much better odds about his two main rivals.

As the Brexit fallout continues to reverberate through British politics, the Labour Party stands on the brink of a destructive, potentially life-threatening civil war. On the latest count, 21 Shadow Cabinet members have resigned and a vote of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn seems certain to trigger a leadership contest.

Considering the PM has said he wants a replacement in place by October, punters are taking a remarkable leap of faith in the power of the Labour rebels. Corbyn has made it clear he will stand in any subsequent leadership contest and, on the basis of polls conducted prior the EU referendum, will likely win it. It is only nine months since he won an enormous mandate from Labour members with 60% of the vote.

Whichever way these markets pan out, the race for Next Labour Leader will remain a fascinating, wide-open heat. Whilst there are obvious front-runners right now, if Corbyn hangs on for a year or two several more could enter the fray. At least the following ten are worthy of close inspection.

When the referendum campaign began, I recommended one bet, on a narrow preference for the status quo, with REMAIN getting between 50.01 and 55% of the vote share. Specifically, by a margin of 52-48. On the eve of our most significant vote in living memory, I’m standing by that prediction and making no changes to our portfolio.

For readers new to the market, I believe the best two bets right now are the same 50.01-55% band for remain at 2.66, and LEAVE at 4.7. Combined after commission, the two bets pay just over 1.6 on REMAIN getting less than 55%.

In order to reach 55% and the bet lose, REMAIN would need a considerable late swing. Without overinvesting in the polls, there is hardly any evidence of anything like a 10% margin of victory. Granted, tonight’s Comres survey shows an 8% lead but today’s other three polls showed a 2% lead and deficits in two big sample online polls, albeit including a large number still undecided.

I do actually believe there will be a late swing to the status quo, particularly among the undecideds. It seems almost a constant in elections, particularly referenda. It blindsided the polls in both the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum and last year’s General Election. Betting market trends prior to both – a short odds favourite getting shorter in spite of a polling narrative proclaiming ‘too close to call’ – are eerily reminscent.

However as argued previously, I also believe differential turnout will provide a counterweight for LEAVE, whose supporters are more motivated and invested in the issue. Interestingly on Channel 4 News, Michael Crick reported that LEAVE believe they are comfortably ahead on postal votes, constituting up to a quarter of the entire turnout.

Prior to the Comres poll, it felt like LEAVE were actually ahead. They’ve led more polls than trailed over the past three weeks – ranging between 42% and 55%. Tomorrow we will know whether Comres was an outlier, or the first signal of that late swing.

However the key point for me is that anti-EU sentiment in Britain is not a fickle, fleeting phenomenon. Most made up their mind a long time ago. Having waited their entire political lives to this cause, one would expect their activists to be better organised. 45% – the target of that combined bet – seems an unambitious target.

Of course if you’ve been following the portfolio, this does not apply as we already have a similar position. If REMAIN were to get 55%, I would take a heavy 153 unit hit. Anything less yields a profit, with 50 – 52.5% by far the best result, yielding 262 units profit.

Looking at the current markets, I see no merit in covering. As the results come in, if our dream band is a live contender, I may consider adding a saver if it becomes clear which way to cover. If so, I’ll announce on Twitter although obviously at that late, live stage it will be impossible to guarantee any prices lasting!

A further significant development in the Republican nomination saga. We now know who will comprise the party’s Rules Committee, which will meet on July 14th to lay out the rules governing their convention four days later. They have the power to kill any Stop Trump moves stone dead, or bring them to life.

It is a pretty safe bet that Trump did not choose, or have any influence, over these appointments. There is nothing to suggest the chair Enid Mickelsen is well disposed towards the presumptive nominee. She is already on record as saying Trump wasn’t an appropriate role model for children.

She is a former Congresswoman from Utah – a state that overwhelmingly rejected Trump in it’s primary and provides some of his worst general election numbers. Mickelsen is a Mormon – yet another demographic amongst whom Trump has dire poll numbers, especially since he questioned the sincerity of 2012 candidate Mitt Romney’s faith.

Most interestingly, Mickelsen is also a friend of Romney, who has promised to do anything within political bounds to stop Trump. Co-chair Ron Kaufman is another potential Romney ally.

It’s hard to read these appointments as anything other than a signal of intent. A provocation or at least a warning. Trump was blaming Jeb Bush for plotting against him at the weekend. On past form, he’ll struggle to resist attacking Romney and these rules officials.

Fixing the rules committee doesn’t ensure the rules being changed – that will be down to the delegates themselves. As I wrote on Friday, they are impossible to accurately predict at this stage. However past form also suggests Trump won’t have made much meaningful effort to win over these delegates, who may hold the key to his fate.

This story seems set to run through to the convention and the market is not done yet. Trump has drifted to 1.16 in recent days for the nomination – an unprecedented weak level for a presumptive nominee at this stage. (By comparison, Hillary Clinton is 1.04). To reiterate past advice, the best placed alternatives by far are Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan.

It would appear that, three days out from the EU Membership Referendum, the market is taking a definitive view. REMAIN has never ceded favouritism but, in the middle of last week, looked as though it might. However a slew of positive polling news for REMAIN and a popular sense that the mood was inching back towards the status quo has forced the odds down to [1.31], equivalent to a 76% likelihood.

If REMAIN does win, particularly if by a decisive margin, it will be the strongest endorsement yet for betting markets as a political predictor. Why? Because frankly, before the weekend round of polls, there was very little publicly available evidence to justify it being favourite any more. Polls and momentum pointed towards LEAVE or at least a very close race, yet a huge gamble was resisted daily. Even the sainted pollster John Curtice said LEAVE should now be favourite just last Wednesday.

It would also vindicate the theory that voters swing late towards the status quo, in fear of change. Without doubt, expectation of this partly explains REMAIN’s resilience. Whereas polls are scientific and based on a snapshot of opinion, political betting markets are driven by gamblers taking a more subjective, longer view.

This is an argument I’ve made countless times over the past year and it certainly stands up over recent history. However in all honesty, I’m less certain it will apply this time. This referendum is nothing like any other in recent history and nobody can truly feel certain of the outcome.

There are many natural and obvious parallels to be drawn with the 2014 Scottish Referendum, which indeed saw that famous late swing to the status quo, but there are also some profound differences. First and foremost, I do not expect turnout to be anything like the 85% seen then. An optimistic assessment says 70%. The differentials between different demographic groups and supporters of each side could prove decisive.

Second, the identity dynamics are different. Defenders of the status quo in Scotland generally ‘feel’ British – they are no less motivated by identity than Scottish nationalists. EU membership may also be the status quo but few REMAIN voters feel ‘European’. The EU project does not, here at least, inspire much passion. The British relationship with the EU is a transactional one.

Pretty much all the recent evidence across the Western world points to a rise in identity politics, particularly nationality. LEAVE supporters, in my view, are much likelier to turn out on Thursday and my bets reflect that.

Another difference with this election is that the question is so complex, making it perfectly understandable that there are so many people undecided. It may be that opinion is far more responsive to an immediate reaction, thus creating the illusory perception of a decisive swing that isn’t necessarily sustainable once voters have had longer to consider.

The sense I got a week ago was that immigration had displaced the economy as the key issue – very bad news for REMAIN, who continue to struggle against the line of attack that says leaving is the only way to control our borders. Both David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn struggled on TV yesterday regarding this, and today’s tabloid headlines make grim reading for them.

Critically, LEAVE’s argument was cutting through in Labour’s working-class heartlands – a vast swathe of England where turnout is usually low. With the Tories generally absent, Labour wins most of it’s seats by huge margins and there is very little incentive to vote. Yet one of the few pro-LEAVE Labour MPs, John Mann, predicts working-class turnout will for the first time ever exceed Middle England.

Whether that bold prediction comes off or not, I think Mann is onto something. From living in various parts of England, particularly Northern Labour constituencies, over the past 20 years, talking politics with people as is my nature, I have long believed there was a largely unheard segment of English society that would be open to the anti-EU message.

This is why I backed UKIP ahead of the curve but even their electoral appeal was always likely to be limited under our electoral system. The reason they only won one seat is because a bigger number were vehemently opposed to their agenda. In any case, politicians have never been less popular. A new party was never likely to be a panacea for mass alienation and anger.

A referendum on the nation’s future is wholly different. It is hard to see why, when so much of the country, led by the tabloid press and talk radio, have blamed the EU and immigration for all our ills for so long, that it’s opponents would spurn this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to have their say.

Of course there is a flipside. The relentless emphasis on immigration has turned plenty of voters off. It is easy to forget that, until fairly recently, immigration was barely even part of the Eurosceptic argument. Now socially liberal, small government, free trade types who dislike EU regulations find themselves in an uncomfortable alliance with UKIP, Nigel Farage and even utterly toxic figures like Donald Trump!

Worse for LEAVE, the shocking and tragic murder of Jo Cox has raised the sceptre of an emerging, fascist Right, that would be emboldened by Brexit. Whilst it is totally unfair to equate her murderer with the LEAVE campaign or individuals within it, the simplistic association is very damaging and it was no surprise to see hints of a reactive poll swing over the weekend. At least nobody, in what has been a profoundly depressing campaign, seems to be seeking to make capital out of the tragedy.

My instinct is that, whilst there was an effect, it is only one of several playing out. One, predictably, is economic fears. It is always easy for the status quo to scare people with savings and investments that they can’t afford to take a risk.

Less so when it comes to voters who don’t feel like they have much to lose, and see no chance of that changing under the status quo. To this group, immigration scaremongering is likelier to hold sway. Whilst the government and status quo win on the first argument, they’ll lose on the second.

First, Paul Ryan said that House Republicans must go with their conscience when deciding whether to support the presumptive nominee. In effect, giving free reign to dozens of public rejections and therefore killing any lingering hope of unity at the convention. One could say he had no other choice given the party’s divisions but it is a notable signal, nevertheless.

Second, a group of delegates launched their fight to become unbound at the convention. Any such decision would have to be taken by the infamous Rules Committee, who will meet a few days before Cleveland. It would then need to be ratified by a majority of delegates – 1237, rather than the 30 odd that came out today.

Nevertheless, Ryan’s ‘conscience clause’ offers a useful precedent for the rebels. If lawmakers are free to consult their conscience rather than blindly following the party nominee, surely ‘bound’ delegates should have the same freedom. As Ryan said, “this is a very unique situation”.

It is impossible to accurately measure the chances on getting that rule change passed, without knowing who the delegates are. But given the mood among so many active Republicans – as opposed to one-off primary voters – there’s a fair chance that over half will be anti-Trump. Hopefully we’ll learn more soon.

The market was already inching away from Trump – out to 1.09 – and I could see this becoming volatile again during the final four weeks.

Rather than laying Trump though, the best angle lies in backing plausible alternatives. By plausible I don’t mean Jeb Bush, who remains ridiculously over-rated in a mirror of the wider race.

The two most obvious are my main bets already – Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan. If the delegates became unbound, Cruz could potentially win on the first ballot. So could John Kasich of course but Cruz is much likelier. In the event of a second ballot and new names being thrown in, Ryan is by far the most obvious name.

Two other names are on my radar. Earlier I threw a couple of units on Nikki Haley at 1000 and I’ve recently backed Scott Walker at around 800 average. Walker was my original tip a year ago, and I still feel he’s one of the few capable of uniting establishment and grassroots. When out of cash and forced to quit the race early, he foresaw how Trump could win and warned his former rivals to swiftly unite around an alternative.

Regarding trading strategy, as with my recent bet on Cruz at 500, I’m not adding any of these to the portfolio and can only offer general advice. Liquidity is weak so published odds can not be guaranteed to last. Plus this is the kind of market that could explode in an instant and the odds transformed. If the rule change were passed, Cruz could theoretically collapse to odds on. Ryan would certainly shorten up. If I lay back, I’ll announce it on Twitter.

Following weeks of big stakes on betting markets without that much volatility, exciting things are definitely afoot. Polls clearly identify a shift in favour of LEAVE and, despite daily waves of resistance, it is moving closer by the minute to REMAIN, the longstanding favourite.

This is a very positive development for my various betting positions, the latest of which was announced on Twitter last week.

As that list shows, the bad result for me is over 55% for REMAIN but I am finding it increasingly hard to envisage that scenario, and see no sense in covering it – at least yet. Right now, LEAVE has all the momentum in both polls and narrative. REMAIN seem in disarray, with their message struggling to cut through. Therefore, as announced just now on Twitter, I’m backing LEAVE at 2.5.

I suspect there is an in-built bias towards REMAIN in the market, for at least two reasons. First, a hunch that traders are simply covering positions on wider financial markets, without necessarily believing in this side of the trade. The swings back after logical drifts have been so immediate, overwhelming and hard to justify on analytical grounds.

Second, in expectation of a late swing towards the status quo. People remember the last General Election, when the most seats markets correctly strengthened behind the governing Conservatives despite polls suggesting otherwise. Or the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum, which went from a virtual dead-heat a week out, to 55-45 in favour of maintaining the status quo.

Scotland offers so many parallels, and it may well be that change voters are scared off at the last minute. A really bad day for the pound or stock markets could generate dramatic headlines and prove a gamechanger. Perhaps the realised threat of Brexit will better motivate REMAIN supporters to turn out.

However another Scottish parallel is very bad news for REMAIN – namely the inability to win over Labour voters. Part of this may be to do with arch-enemy Conservatives leading the debate – although Jeremy Corbyn, Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown have all tried to be heard. I prefer this explanation from Owen Jones – that those that feel they have the least economic stake in the status quo are minded to abandon it.

It may well be that the main market is now wrong and LEAVE should be at least level pegging in the betting. The polls, narrative and odds seem certain to move in that direction for the next few days. Therefore, this is the perfect time to cover what would be a fantastic result – narrow REMAIN win – whilst increasing the risk on a decisive REMAIN win.

So the next bet is a 50 unit bet on LEAVE at 2.5 – see the list below for the new overall position. I should add to readers who haven’t followed all the earlier bets that the original 50-55% band still offers great value at 3.2. Combined with LEAVE, this means we can back under 55% at around 1.4. Without a gamechanger, that looks increasingly like banker material.

Updated Brexit Profit/Loss (prior to Betfair’s commission, to be calculated at the end).

Now Hillary Clinton has passed the threshold to secure the Democrat nomination, betting focus shifts to her choice of running mate. In last week’s piece for Betfair, I weighed up the chances of seven possible vice presidential candidates.

Bernie Sanders – Odds 12.0

While Hillary Clinton’s long-term focus is on Donald Trump, a more pressing concern involves uniting her own party. Sanders has no realistic chance of converting the superdelegates as he aspires to, but he’s still threatening to take his fight all the way to what is, on paper, a contested convention.

Though his challenge is futile, the internal damage is potentially huge. Relations between Bernie’s largely independent, left-wing supporters and the so-called Democrat establishment have never been worse. These voters are far from certain to vote en masse for Clinton and plenty may be tempted by the other ‘outsider’ in the race, Trump.

What better way for Clinton to heal wounds and move forward than picking her former rival to be her running mate? That’s the theory but, in reality, this is a massive longshot. It surely makes more sense to pick someone who hasn’t been attacking the main candidate for months, and there are others who would better unite the party.

Just a week ago, Donald Trump’s improbable bid to be president was looking likelier than ever. Senior Republicans were uniting around him and his poll deficit was closing fast. Hillary Clinton drifted out to 1.58 in the Next President market.

Now, after just a small taste of what his campaign will look like, the handwringing has already begun. In the wake of what were unarguably racist comments about the Indiana-born Latino judge overseeing the Trump University lawsuit, conservatives are queuing up to condemn him.

Some, like Paul Ryan, have made themselves look ridiculous. The Speaker, who originally delayed endorsing Trump, then endorsed him last week, now disavows what he regards as ‘textbook racist’ comments, but says he’ll still support the presumptive GOP nominee. Others like Lindsay Graham feel vindicated by their consistent, principled opposition.

Critically, even high profile Republicans that once seemed for all the world like surrogates have condemned him. Newt Gingrich, rated 40% likely to be Trump’s VP pick a fortnight ago, said it was one of Trump’s worst mistakes.

Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, gave Trump a much easier time than his rivals during the primaries, but now says his fellow Republicans must start calling his racist comments out today, to avoid electoral disaster down ballot and being destroyed as a true national party.

Apart from destroying the party’s fragile unity and reinforcing perceptions of racism, the effect of Trump’s latest bout of madness is to put a potentially damaging scandal back in the headlines. Regardless of the ultimate case verdict or credibility of his accusers, Trump can only lose from this publicity. Mud sticks. Ask Clinton, who is still attacked over long debunked conspiracy theories from the 1990s.

Nor is this the only scandal in play. Many Americans are attacking the media for giving Trump an easy ride. I agree, at least regarding TV.

When I was in the States for the primaries, it seemed like there was an endless stream of controversies to explore – Trump mocking a disabled reporter, taking days to disavow the KKK, failure to submit tax returns, employing illegal foreign workers on his projects, even accusations of mafia ties.

Yet most of this was lost in the noise of rolling news coverage, and the candidate was rarely scrutinised properly. Instead, voters just saw his name front and centre of every news bulletin, squeezing coverage from his rivals. I was being told by GOP voters even in February that they didn’t know much about Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. The media were obsessed with two names – Donald Trump and Jeb Bush who, as I predicted months earlier, had no chance.

Notably, the one race where he faced one-to-one interviews – Wisconsin – resulted in daily humiliation and a catastrophic defeat. Afterwards, Trump wisely avoided such potentially disastrous interviews ahead of the North-East contests that got him back on track and ultimately finished the #NeverTrump plan.

Now we can be sure that the Clinton campaign will bombard voters with these numerous scandals until November. Check out this brutal new ad regarding Trump mocking the disabled reporter. Republican leaders and strategists understand this and are rightly terrified about the prospect.

I fully expect to be attacked by Trump supporters for saying this and, whilst I consider this an honest appraisal, do stand to win a lot more money if Ted Cruz were the nominee.

Nevertheless, I have not totally given up hope on Trump being stopped at the convention. As my friend Melissa Caen has been pointing out for the best part of a year, long before the media even mentioned brokered conventions or the rules committee, the RNC has the power to do pretty much anything at the convention.

Sure it would cause a riot but as Melissa explains, the delegates won during the primaries could, theoretically, become unbound from Trump with a rules change. It would be an extreme measure but if Trump continues in his current vein for another month, who knows? At this stage of the process, it is very hard for him to dodge scrutiny as earlier in the race.

I cannot predict the precise mechanism for stopping Trump at the convention and, as the betting implies, any such efforts will likely prove futile. However if you want to take just 1.03 on Trump being the nominee, be my guest. Laying those odds could be worth a speculative punt, as could taking huge odds about the limited number of potential alternatives.

I have just had another nibble on Cruz at 500 – he seems the likeliest beneficiary of any such move. Unlike Marco Rubio or Ryan, Cruz hasn’t humiliated himself by endorsing Trump and has easily the second most delegates.

However I’m not adding it to the portfolio as there is so little money in the market, these odds could collapse in a heartbeat and readers will miss out. But the dream scenario of convention chaos and the associated market mayhem is still just about alive.

Granted, not many stranger things have happened, but this cycle is uniquely strange. Not least this self-inflicted suicide of one of world’s great political parties.

The art of betting on politics, (or pretty much anything for that matter), is being able to cut through the froth. And there seems to be more froth around than usual this cycle.

Granted, some of that froth turned out to be serious – like a reality TV star with no political experience, ground game or longstanding conservative credentials winning the Republican nomination. Plus all that chatter about Donald Trump being blocked at a brokered convention – at the time, based on sound delegate maths – turned out to be froth.

Nevertheless, I am happy to dismiss the ongoing theory that Bernie Sanders can somehow win the Democrat nomination via a contested convention as precisely the sort of noise generated by partisans during an election.

As explained at the weekend, Hillary Clinton will all but sew up the nomination tomorrow and, in my view, the party will immediately begin to re-unite ahead of the general election. Even in the unlikely event that Clinton were indicted before the convention, the super-delegates would rather switch allegiance to the current VP, Joe Biden.

What this now means is that the two relatively short-term markets in play involve the parties’ respective VP picks. On the Republican side, I’m extremely confident of a profit from opposing John Kasich and Ben Carson, and may add more bets very soon. For the Democrats, I took my first position today, as announced on Twitter.

Here’s the explanation. In stark contrast to the Trump VP field, I don’t believe there are very many realistic candidates. Later this week, I’ll run through the claims of seven market leaders.

For now though, my focus is on Tom Perez. I believe the most pressing concern for Clinton is to pick someone who can enthuse the progressives who are angry towards her, or at least energised by the Sanders campaign. Failure to win them over – some polls suggest 20% of them could vote Trump in November – could prove disastrous.

Likewise, whether they voted for Sanders or not, a further problem lies among disaffected union members. Indeed, union members could prove to be the key battleground, as Trump fares much better among them than recent Republican candidates.

Though a Clinton supporter throughout, Perez fits both bills. The Labor Secretary has a strong, long-term pedigree associated with progressive causes such as civil rights and was endorsed earlier this year by none other than Elizabeth Warren – a leading VP candidate and very much future presidential nominee material. Her support counts for plenty with the Left.

Then there’s his recent work for the Obama administration. Perez is the cabinet member responsible for recent drives towards more paid leave and overtime rights. Most recently, he announced a settlement in principle between unions and Verizon, following a two week strike.

These significant issues directly affect low-paid workers and union members – and are touchstone issues with the Democrat base. Unlike many other progressives, he’s supported Clinton throughout. He would also be the first Hispanic on a presidential ticket. In short, he ticks every box for the VP role and could prove a nightmare for Trump. 10 to 1 – available widely with bookmakers – represents cracking value.

Next Tuesday, arguably the most memorable primary season in the history of US politics will draw to a conclusion. Whereas the term ‘Super Tuesday’ is normally associated with the slew of key races at the beginning of March that, historically, have proved a decisive moment, the term has been repeatedly used during this cycle and is no less apt for these final six races.

For months it seemed that June 7th would be a decisive moment in the Republican race, as the <strong>#NeverTrump</strong> movement sought to keep Donald Trump short of the 1237 delegates required for victory. However that race ended a month ago when his rivals withdrew and the magic number has already been passed.

Moreover, any lingering possibility of an establishment plot to stop him at the convention disappeared this week, with the belated endorsement of Speaker Paul Ryan – once backed below 20.0 in expectation of a brokered convention. Now the GOP will hope to unite, and that voters will forget the insults and character assassinations of their anarchic race.

All of those markets regarding the Republicans and the prospect of a brokered convention are now effectively done, awaiting settlement during the convention. Instead, focus has shifted to identifying Trump’s Vice Presidential pick. Here, former Speaker Newt Gingrich is strong favourite, rated 33% likely at 3.0.

Trump, meanwhile, remains the weakest presidential candidate since the advent of Betfair. Despite an improved polling position, Trump is still rated only 23% likely to be the Next President at odds of 4.3.

However while the GOP candidate remains weak, his opponents are doing their best to endanger their strong position. In a bizarre turnaround, it is now the Democrat convention that threatens to generate damaging headlines and sow division, at precisely the moment the party needs to unite ahead of the General Election.

Trying to find a cheap, value punt in the Brexit markets has not been straightforward. So far as the main result market is concerned, the scope for short-term trading has been limited and taking a confident view involves a sizeable risk, in a referendum which is far from clear cut.

Remain, for example, has traded between 1.45 and 1.16 since the campaigns began in earnest. So if you fancy the favourite winning – as I do – a big stake is required. However as I’ve argued before, the potential for differential turnout tempers confidence and leads me to think Remain will underperform the polls.

Imagine, for example, that we’d got involved last week, when Remain seemed to be pulling ahead and shortening on betting markets, at say [1.25] (80%), before it peaked at 86%. A couple of contrary polls later, and that rating has dropped to 75%. What felt like a solid trade, anticipating an obvious market move, would suddenly be a negative position. Not my kind of betting – too much risk for too little reward.

Again to repeat my sole existing trade, a preferred market is on Remain’s vote share and I certainly wouldn’t deter anyone from taking the 3.55 now about 50 – 55%. However the recent odds movement presents an excellent value opportunity to hedge between the main result market and the handicap giving Leave a 2.5% start.

Whereas Remain can be backed at 1.34, Leave is 2.9 to get over 47.5%. Backing both for proportionate stakes equates to odds of [11.0] about Remain getting between 50 and 52.5%. See the calculations below.

Back Remain 90 units @ 1.34

Back Leave Over 47.5% 41.6 units @ 2.9

So, if Remain gets more than 52.5%, we make 30.6 units on the first bet, but lose 41.6 units on the latter, meaning an 11 unit overall loss. Likewise if Leave wins, we lose 90 units on the former, and win 79 on the latter, losing 11 units overall. (These precise stakes are to yield an equal return and should be altered accordingly with price changes).

But if Leave gets between 47.5 and 49.99% – accounting for half of the preferred band that I reckon represents a good value 28% chance – we will win both bets, yielding 110 units profit from an initial risk of 11 units. In short, a 10 to 1 chance or just 9%. While these odds are around, this simply must represent value and would still do so even if the combined odds shortened to 7 or 8 to 1.

With the Republican nomination secure, the next big election market involves identifying Donald Trump’s running mate. So far I’ve taken two positions, opposing John Kasich and Ben Carson for the job. Here I look at seven alternatives being reported as in the running.

Newt Gingrich

Dominating the market is one of the best-known figures in American politics and almost as divisive a figure as Trump himself. Having signalled his enthusiasm for a job many big-hitters are swerving, Betfair punters have driven Gingrich down to a peak of 2.0, equivalent to a 50% chance.

At the forefront of political life for four decades, former Speaker Gingrich famously brought the Clinton adminstration to a standstill – closing the government down over a budget standoff – beginning an era of Washington deadlock that persists to this day.

That era did his public image no favours, and a bid for the nomination in 2012 failed badly. Nevertheless, Trump has said he wants a candidate with deep political experience, with the understanding and ability to drive legislation through Congress. Gingrich is stronger in that regard than any of his rivals and has been one of the few heavyweight voices prepared to defend Trump on the airwaves throughout this cycle.

Besides experience, though, it is not clear what Gingrich brings to the ticket. Unlike other potential picks, Gingrich is unlikely to swing any key states or Democrat voters. His private life is as complicated and potentially damaging as Trump’s and there’s little reason to assume he would improve the candidate’s terrible standing with women or hispanics.

Amidst a predictably middling set of UK election results, only one faction emerged as clear losers – the substantial number of MPs, journalists and prominent Labour supporters who are implacably opposed to Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn is not going anywhere in the short-term. These results were as good as could have been expected, one year after a catastrophic General Election. Ever since, Labour and Corbyn have endured an appalling news cycle, dominated by division, turbulence and forecasts of electoral suicide.

The fact they are nowhere near on course to win the next election – a point repeated ad nauseum in BBC election coverage – is not all that significant, and not just because it is four years away. More pressing has been concern that the party might simply hollow out and decline, as in Scotland, accelerated by the rise of UKIP.

That hasn’t happened. Corbyn’s Labour has performed as well as Ed Miliband’s best set of local elections, along with winning mayoralties in London and Bristol. UKIP, as the last autumn’s Oldham by-election result suggested, have stalled, despite benefiting from Brexit coverage. It remains a ten year rebuilding job, but this represents a small step forward, not the disaster his enemies predicted.

To try and engineer a coup right now would be widely seen as illegitimate and almost certainly prove counter-productive. If Corbyn were to face a challenge, the membership that gave 60% support would back him again. There is no evidence that any of his leadership rivals or would-be replacements would have fared any better given the inheritance.

That doesn’t mean his fiercest critics will be silenced – their rift goes deep, on both personal and ideological grounds. The media are obsessed with the ‘Labour split’ narrative and it remains hard to imagine Corbyn surviving a full parliament without being challenged.

However those that continue to carp from the sidelines will alienate themselves further from the base, ruining their own ambitions and anyone they later endorse.

Two betting implications spring to mind. First, 2016 and 2017 make no appeal as Corbyn’s exit date at 4.0 and 4.5. I’m very happy that my bets on 2018 and 2019 will be easy to cover at a later date.

Secondly if that is the case, the search for his successor can be widened to relative newcomers who will have made their mark by the time the contest comes around. The next Labour leader market is wide-open, with the favourites trading around 8.0 (12.5%).

For now, I want to be against any of the candidates regarded, fairly or not, as backed by so-called Blairites/establishment/plotters. Their support, particularly from the Murdoch press, destroyed any slim hope Liz Kendall had last year. The media hype made her the second favourite, yet she finished last on just 4%.

Candidates that fit that bill include favourite Dan Jarvis, Hilary Benn, Owen Smith and the ridiculously priced 23.0 chance David Miliband. Instead, I want mainstream candidates that can unite the party. That, I believe, would be beyond Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, who many shrewd judges regard as best placed to takeover and must rate one of the main contenders.

McDonnell is no less, perhaps more, toxic among Labour MPs and no closer to median public opinion than Corbyn and we shouldn’t assume the membership will inevitably want another hard-left leader. That wasn’t why he won. Corbyn won due to his authenticity, a desire to move on from the New Labour years and three sub-standard rivals that were intrinsically linked to the ancien regime.

Because Corbyn’s refreshingly different campaign inspired hundreds of thousands of people to sign up and back him, it doesn’t automatically follow that they would do so for his longstanding comrade John McDonnell. The dynamics of the next race will be different.

One man is perfectly positioned to be next leader – if he wants it. Tom Watson is immensely popular amongst Labour-minded people, particularly since taking on Rupert Murdoch, and strongly engaged with social media. He is not an ideological soulmate with Corbyn, but has repeatedly stressed the need for unity since beginning his deputy leadership bid. That sort of loyalty will be rewarded.

I’m not wholly convinced Watson wants the job. He’s previously ruled it out and could end up playing kingmaker. However these things can always change and, for the foreseeable future, he is the standout obvious unity candidate. I doubt 10/1 will be around for long.

Looking longer-term, I reckon by the time this race actually takes place, 29.0 will look a massive price about Stephen Kinnock. Only an MP since last May, the son of former leader Neil left a high-flying career at international institutions to pursue his political career. He’s married to former Danish PM Helle Thorning-Schmidt, and has not come to Westminster to sit on the back benches forever. He’s impressed me on TV and in taking a central role pursuing solutions to the crisis in the UK steel industry.

In mentioning a profound sense of anti-climax, I probably speak for most political gamblers. A brokered Republican convention, given wall-to-wall media coverage, with endless speculation about rule changes and new candidates would have been a dream scenario, producing volatile markets and countless opportunities to bet.

Yet from being rated a near certainty on betting markets less than a month ago, all that talk of Donald Trump failing to reach 1237 delegates is history. We can now look forward to a simple, straight, almost conventional match-up between the Republican and Democrat candidates.

That opens up many more betting opportunities but this premature impasse seems a good time to reflect on this incredible race and update the betting portfolio. First, here’s my profit and loss on the Republican Nominee and Next President markets, including positions intrinsically linked between the two.

Republican Nominee

Donald Trump +87 units

Ted Cruz +197 units

John Kasich -191 units

Paul Ryan +529 units

Nikki Haley +949 units

Others -51 units

Next President

Hillary Clinton +22 units

Bernie Sanders +69 units

Donald Trump -84 units

Ted Cruz +322 units

John Kasich +742 units

Others +22 units

As long-term readers will know, no new bets have been added since cashing out a further 50 units profit on Ted Cruz, immediately after what seemed like a breakthrough win in Wisconsin. After that, l felt Trump was overpriced but, having poorly timed my last bet on him at 1.38, I opted against an extra cover bet at around 2.0.

A mistake, for sure, but not my first regarding Trump, as I’ll discuss below. Nevertheless, the upshot is that if as expected, Hillary Clinton becomes president, this part of the portfolio will yield 109 units profit. If Trump wins, I’ll make just 3 units. Of course I could just lock in 78 units by laying back Clinton at 1.42, and some sort of cover will be constantly available until November.

I have no intention of doing so. So long as Clinton remains anything close to double-digits ahead in national polls – the latest CNN numbers project a 13% advantage – her odds cannot get bigger. Or should I say the Democrats in the Winning Party market, lest Clinton is indicted over the e-mail scandal.

Overall, I’m reasonably happy with that position. An occupational hazard of trading is that we can’t help but rethink trades after the event and can almost always see how much more we could have won. Forgetting that, when switching horses on a regular basis, one is never going to always get every move right.

My one serious regret is not backing Trump around the New Year, somewhere between 4.0 and 6.0. My long-term analysis of the race had been that an outsider would win – but that Ted Cruz was the value bet. That Trump would either implode or be outlasted once his poor favourability numbers came into play after the field had winnowed. Either Cruz or Rubio would come through.

Whilst that underestimation of Trump was a common failing amongst pundits and gamblers and not worth dwelling upon, the real mistake was not to have a cover when it was clear he would be one of the top-two contenders in the early primaries.

Nevertheless, on the plus side, I could barely have traded Cruz any better. Backing him high early, selling him low late. Likewise, my early rejection of Jeb Bush when he was hot favourite set everything up. These bets were placed long before the portfolio was conceived, but amount to an extra 60 units profit.

Could the race have gone differently? Of course. Trump was not inevitable, but his opponents played a terrible hand. For six months, he totally monopolised the media narrative as an insane number of rivals shared out miniscule airtime.

An abiding memory of my trips to Iowa and New Hampshire was how little voters previously knew of the candidates beyond Trump, Bush and to a lesser extent, Cruz and Christie. If Rubio was indeed the next Republican star, he wasn’t given the chance to shine until it was too late.

A second turning point was the all-out onslaught against Cruz going into Iowa through until after South Carolina. It seemed for a while that the so-called establishment preferred Trump. The Rubio campaign may have assumed Cruz was a bigger long-term danger.

Cruz was certainly damaged during that period, leading to serious underperformance in South Carolina and most Super Tuesday states. My earlier confidence had been predicated on him dominating these and getting ahead in the delegate count. With hindsight, it’s a relief that he had the resilience to get competitive again.

After South Carolina, everything changed. Trump was suddenly scrutinised and relentless attacked by both Rubio and Cruz in the debates. Nobody won, but now both Trump and Rubio were damaged. The latter fatally so.

Trump begun to lose primaries and seemed stuck around 40%, changing the media narrative about sweeping all before him. Cruz, with limited appeal, a long way behind and damaged, emerged as the sole serious challenger. Winning outright was no longer realistic, and the complicated, dubiously legitimate process of stopping Trump getting to 1237 became the only game in town.

Had Trump been attacked like that, by Rubio and Cruz, last autumn, everything could have been different. Likewise, had Cruz not been damaged in the early primaries, the maths may have been different and that contested convention would have been realistic.

Nonetheless, this is merely one of those ‘What Ifs’ that politicos love so much, and Republican historians will explore countless further twists and turns.

Ultimately, Donald Trump has rewritten the rule book and confounded the commentariat, including gamblers. Regardless of my personal analysis, Trump was clearly underestimated on betting markets until he won New Hampshire, thus proving his poll numbers were for real. Likewise the power of the #NeverTrump movement was doubtless overstated in between Wisconsin and New York.

Only time will tell if I, and the markets, are still right to dismiss Trump’s chance of becoming president. There is a long way to go and a lot more bets to be placed!

So after all that, the GOP race is over. No dramatic finale in California, let alone the fascinating, unique spectacle of a brokered convention. It seems incredible that, less than three weeks ago, Donald Trump was weaker on betting markets than he’d been for months, drifting out to around 45%. Even more so that he was rated 82% likely to fall short of 1237 delegates!

Later today I’ll be updating my betting portfolio and reflecting on some of the trades over recent months. First though, we need to look ahead.

In due course, when the nominees are actually confirmed at the conventions, a vast swathe of betting markets will open such as on individual states and, of most interest, the distribution of electoral college votes. For now, though, my focus is on the vice presidential picks.

One minor problem here is that recommending a portfolio, as I did on the nomination, is unrealistic because getting a sizeable bet on is not straightforward. Conventional bookmakers tend to restrict stakes on these markets, in fear of insider information. You will struggle to get £50 on in a betting shop.

Betfair has no such restrictions, of course, but in order to play seriously we’ll need much more liquidity than is currently available. Hopefully it will improve, as political gamblers free up funds from the nomination markets.

Nevertheless, I’ll run through my strategy as we go. First, the Republicans. I’ve already laid (opposed) John Kasich at 25% a couple of months ago, and am very confident of securing those 12 units of profit.

Indeed, I’m not convinced by any of Trump’s defeated opponents. The race was simply too brutal, the insults too harsh. Were any of them the nominee – with the possible exception of Trump surrogates Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee – the media and Democrat ads would be repeating those attacks ad nauseum.

Which brings me to my second position, opposing Ben Carson. I’ve laid four units at odds of 13.0 or 8%. The point here is that Trump is on record as saying he will pick someone with political, legislative experience. A Trump/Carson ticket would be too maverick and risky.

Granted, Trump is the most unpredictable candidate ever but he’ll surely look for a running mate that compensates for his own weaknesses – chief of which is policy expertise and understanding of the political process.

The field for that role is wide-open. Senator Jeff Sessions – regarded by some as an intellectual leader amongst the modern Conservative movement – might fit the bill. So too does South Carolina Senator Tim Scott.

There’s a bit of money around for former Speaker Newt Gingrich, although this would strike me as another suicidal electoral move. Gingrich has almost as much baggage as Trump, and would probably serve to make a toxic ticket even more so.

Some are talking about Sarah Palin, given her longstanding Trump endorsement. Again, in my view it would be utter madness to pick the woman that alienated so many swing voters in 2008 and beyond.

One outsider that does make some appeal is Rudy Giuliani – available at 50/1 for small sums with bookies. The former NY Mayor has been in Trump’s corner for months when most establishment figures wouldn’t touch him. A popular figure, moderate enough to attract Democrat voters, with a wealth of governing experience, Giuliani could help detoxify the Trump brand and win some purple states.

However right now, I’d rather play bookie. There’s a lot of guessing going on, especially among UK gamblers whose first instinct is to back the losing candidates that they know from the nomination race. This has happened in previous cycles – Mitt Romney was a very short-priced favourite in 2008, for example, despite having lost the nomination due to a terrible campaign.

Christie, friend and surrogate to Trump, is another near the top of the market who is well worth opposing. I think he’d get a big job in a Trump administration – Attorney General perhaps – but can’t see what he’d bring to the ticket. Rather than offering a contrast, he shares Trump’s brash, North-East persona and is also viewed with deep scepticism by a large part of the Conservative base.

Marco Rubio is a name I’ve toyed with in recent days, after the one-time favourite offered much warmer words than usual about Trump. He would make sense from the standpoint of trying to unite the party, and I suspect he’s on Trump’s list.

However there are two problems with Rubio. First, neither man needs their farcical war of words replaying endlessly on TV. It was arguably the most damaging part of the process for both. Secondly, Rubio may have his eyes on running in 2020 and has little to gain from being associated with what is rated heavily odds-on to be a losing bid.

In short then, I’ve laid Kasich and Carson already and am interesting in taking on Christie if he stays around 5.0 (20%). As for Rubio, I suspect he’ll go a lot shorter than the current 15.0 (7%). If and when those moves materialise, I’ll update here and on Twitter.

There has been much talk in the USA about the Republicans committing electoral suicide and it seems the phenomenon has spread to the UK Left, with the Labour Party seemingly hell-bent on implosion.

Ahead of key elections across the UK on Thursday, Labour are in a terrible place. Ken Livingstone’s suspension amid accusations of anti-semitism within the party is all over the news. To make matters worse, rather than let the story die down, the former London Mayor and his allies are pouring fuel on the fire by blaming ’embittered Blairites’.

There should be *some* good news on Thursday, with Sadiq Khan rated 89% likely to become Mayor, but losses are expected across local councils and further disaster looms in Scotland, where they could even finish a humiliating third, beaten by the Tories. Remember, one of Corbyn’s selling points was that he could win back lost Scottish Labour voters.

It is by no means clear that Corbyn himself is the problem. Considering everything that has been thrown at him from both inside and outside the party, he’s done well to survive. He’s been vindicated over some issues – tax credits, for example – and Labour are running close behind the Tories in the polls. I doubt any of his rivals for the leadership would have fared dramatically better.

Rather Labour’s problems stem from the party being fundamentally divided on both political and personal grounds. Corbyn and his closest allies are mortal enemies of a large chunk of MPs, and viewed with deep scepticism by another large chunk. It isn’t just ’embittered Blairites’ that were outraged by Livingstone’s comments.

Remember the far-left of the party couldn’t get 15% of MPs to back John McDonnell’s challenge in 2007, and both Corbyn and Diane Abbott in 2010 only found their way onto the ballot paper because other candidates lent them supporters to mount what seemed like a token bid. It won’t take much co-ordination among Labour MPs to force a leadership contest.

Corbyn’s critics are already out in force even before Thursday’s vote, and some will probably be calling for a leadership challenge by the weekend. I’m not convinced it will materialise just yet but it almost certainly will at some stage before the next election in 2020, so the betting angle is to predict that date.

Corbyn is just 3.0 (33%) to leave post in 2016, but this strikes me as a poor value bet for several reasons. First, UK politics will be dominated by Brexit for the next few weeks, and the fallout from it within the Conservative Party may take centre stage thereafter.

Besides, the Labour Party has a long history of agonising over such coups due to the complexity of the rules governing a challenge. The next few months will involve both sides trying to amend those rules to suit their interest in a fight that could play out at the autumn conference.

Plus an early coup would unlikely yield the desired result. It wouldn’t be too difficult garnering the signatures of 20% of Labour MPs to nominate a challenger, but the plotters would need to keep Corbyn off the ballot paper. He remains popular with the membership that gave him 60% of first preference votes, and they would probably react angrily, especially without any demonstrable proof that Corbyn is any more of an electoral albatross than his two predecessors Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband.

If mistiming the move now, the plotters may not get another chance before 2020 but eventually a full-blown crisis is inevitable, probably over policy divisions. Another foreign policy split or a parliamentary vote on Trident, for example. When it does, the media will pour fire on it and betting markets will respond accordingly. In the past, we’ve seen some crazy over-reactions to leadership speculation.

Therefore, on the basis that by 2020, it will be too late to change leader ahead of the election, the value bet lies with one or more of 2017, 2018 and 2019, available respectively at 5.5, 11.0 and 13.0.

A combined bet on those three pays around 2.85 (35%) or alternatively just the latter two around 6.0 (17%). Both options make sense, but at this stage I’ll go for the cheaper combination. Covers can always be added later and, if Corbyn is still there in 12 months as expected, this will probably have developed into a great position.

When the timing becomes clearer, there will be a great opportunity in the form of a new leadership contest. Right now, my pick would be Lisa Nandy, the Shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary – loyal to Corbyn, cut from the same political cloth as the membership and younger, without the baggage that comes with Corbyn and McDonnell.

The race is wide-open though, including at least ten plausible candidates, and her odds of 7.5 (14%) don’t stand out as particularly generous. Better, on this market, to wait.

A presidential match-up between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is rated likelier than ever after the front-runners totally dominated Tuesday’s round of primaries in the North-East.

Clinton is now just 1.04 to be the Democrat Nominee and [1.34] to become Next President, which equates to 96% and 75% chances respectively. On the Republican side, Trump is 1.21 or 83% for the nomination, and 5.3 (19%) for the presidency.

In keeping with the entire campaign, the movement in Trump’s odds over recent weeks has been remarkable, proving how even the most predictable sources of momentum can transform betting markets.

Following his predictable runaway win in New York, and ahead of tomorrow’s five North-East primaries, Donald Trump is rated 70% likely on betting markets to be the Republican Nominee. Precisely the mark he was before a predictable loss in Wisconsin, which caused a dramatic over-reaction and slide to a trough of 44%.

On that basis, we can assume that by the end of the week, he’ll be significantly higher than 70%, as the market responds to what seems certain to be a clean sweep of all five primaries. Following the electoral map offers an obvious strategy for traders, as the market appears slow to spot extremely predictable spikes in advance.

Nevertheless, Trump is still a long way from winning the nomination. The chances of a Contested Convention have slipped to 67% from around 80%, but he is still odds-on to fall short of the 1237 delegates required to assure victory on the first ballot. Given how Ted Cruz is teaching the political novice lessons in securing delegates all over the country, that first ballot is probably Trump’s only chance of victory.

Therefore Trump needs at least one of two things to happen, both of which are becoming likelier during this dominant run of April results. To win extra support, from voters beyond his loyal base, in the final few primaries and to win over some of the unbound delegates who will hold the balance of power at the convention.

The key to both is legitimacy, and cutting through with his argument that the system is rigged against him.

As a Brit with experience of the Alternative Vote System – that has thwarted a first-round ballot leader in a Labour Party leadership contest before – I’m not convinced that such multiple ballots produce illegitimate leaders. Yet I do remember how hard that process was to explain without it appearing like a stitch-up, and how freely Ed Miliband’s enemies described him as illegitimate.

That won’t Trump’s opponents, who are driven by based on deeply held political views and fear that his candidacy could destroy their party. But after tomorrow’s bad results, #NeverTrump could face a legitimacy crisis and deteriorating media narrative.

The latest development is a good case in point. A big problem for Trump opponents has been lack of co-ordination and splitting the vote. Now, Cruz and John Kasich have gone public with a pact, where each does what they can to give the other a free run against Trump in states that suit their profile.

For example, Kasich would sit back in Indiana – a profoundly important contest on May 3rd that could determine the whole thing. Cruz won’t try too hard in Oregon and New Mexico.

The logic of such a plan is obvious and probably overdue. It may well deliver Cruz the result in Indiana that ultimately blocks Trump.

However, with a deal out in the public domain, it also offers Trump an easy line of attack to throw at them over the next two months. The ‘establishment’ – hated by everyone outside of it, apparently – are using any tactic at their disposal to deny the will of the people. Around the world, on either left or right, that seems a consistently popular rallying call.

Remember, Trump only needs to convert a small number of voters and/or unbound delegates. He has never looked likelier to be the nominee and, after tomorrow’s results, is expected to hit his highest betting rating yet.

When the primaries began well over two months ago, few expected both Republican and Democrat races would still be exciting betting heats by the time the process reached New York.

Normally at this stage, the leading candidate is well on course to win a majority of delegates, and the latter primaries serve as a chance for the party to rubber-stamp their candidate ahead of the General Election. Yet ahead of tomorrow’s valuable primary in the Empire State, both races are unsettled and both parties divided.

Perhaps, with Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders providing unique candidacies on either side, drawing new voters to the primaries, we should have realised this would be like no other year.

The former continues to hog most of the publicity, delegate leader and is favourite at [1.7] (equivalent to a 59% chance) to be the Republican Nominee but Trump is no nearer uniting Republicans, with at least a third viewing him unfavourably.

In ten week’s time, the UK will vote on arguably it’s most important political decision in over 40 years, regarding membership of the European Union. After considering and debating the question for 20, the time has come to bet on it.

I’m still loathe to make a definitive prediction about the result. The current odds – 1.48 (68

%) for Remain, 3.05 (33%) for Leave, strikes me as more or less accurate.

That reflects polls showing Remain slightly ahead with a large number of undecideds. In the four conducted over the last month with no more than 10% undecided, Remain was ahead by an average 4%.

There is no obvious short-term trading angle on that main Brexit market. If the polls continue to show Remain ahead, those odds will slowly shorten throughout the next ten weeks. However as we saw in the Scottish Independence Referendum, a rogue poll or even a short-term trend can panic the political establishment and spook the markets. Why take the risk at such an early stage, especially when there are plenty of other betting options?

As always, my primary aim is less about picking an eventual winner, than correctly predicting the trajectory of the market. Get the early value, cash out later. The best place to do this is in the Remain Vote Percentage market.

The early odds suggest a wide-open contest, with extreme one-sided results at big, but not dismissive odds. I simply cannot see it happening. The twenty-odd percent of undecideds may be precisely that – the lack of neutral information is a common complaint – but most of the rest, in my view, are pretty fixed.

The UK has a long, deep history of Euroscepticism, particularly among Conservatives but also across society and within the wider national conversation. The press is overwhelming Eurosceptic. UKIP – fundamentally an anti-EU protest party with a toxic image and very unfavourable approval ratings – won 4M votes at last year’s General Election.

The subject has been polled for many years, with the percentage for Leave averaging somewhere in the forties, occasionally ahead. Having spent a lifetime taking a stance on this deep and emotive question, Eurosceptics are not going to miss their once in a lifetime chance to vote on it. They are surely likelier to vote than Remain supporters.

That doesn’t mean they will win the referendum but 40% looks an unambitious floor. If so, that rules out about 17% of the book from the top-three bands on Remain Vote Percentage.

My current prediction is 52-48 to Remain, basically in line with the polls. Undecided voters have a tendency to swing late towards the status quo. This small segment of the electorate could be susceptible to Project Fear from the government, opposition, big business and trade unions. The UK’s median political outlook is ‘small c’ conservative, risk-averse. However lower turnout among Remain supporters will limit the effect of that gamechanging advantage.

That prediction is bang in the middle of my selection for Remain Vote Percentage. 50.01 – 55% is available to back at 3.8, equivalent to 26%. A cheap price about what is an extremely conventional prediction. Unless the polls change quite dramatically, these odds are only going to shorten.

It goes without saying that the political leaning of US states differs, and that results will therefore vary significantly between primaries. Yet basing betting strategy on that simple, easily attained knowledge will have yielded easy profits throughout this cycle.

For example, since primary voting began, the best time to back Donald Trump was between defeat in Iowa (fairly predictable on polling and demographic grounds), and victory in New Hampshire (entirely predictable on polling and demographic grounds). Later, Ted Cruz shortened dramatically following Super Tuesday and victory in his home state. So did John Kasich after predictably winning Ohio.

Likewise, gamblers that backed Ted Cruz or opposed Donald Trump a week or so before the Wisconsin primary will have either cashed out or be sitting on a great position. In the space of two weeks including only one race, Cruz’s chance rose from 12% to 29% on Betfair, while Trump fell from 72% to 50%.

Those marks altered to further extremes as results came in on Tuesday, with Cruz almost challenging for favouritism at one stage. As announced on Twitter immediately, I took the opportunity to cash in 50 units profit of my long-term Cruz position.

That saver doesn’t reflect a lack of confidence in Cruz. Rather, it is a cover in recognition that the market may move against him in the short-term.

Wisconsin was huge for him – a genuine breakthrough that cemented his role as the only realistic anti-Trump option and put real pressure on the front-runner. However the Badger State’s conservative movement, energised during years of political conflict under Scott Walker, made it more fertile territory for Cruz than may have immediately seemed obvious. It is not reflective of the next set of primaries in the North-East.

April is not likely to be a productive month for Cruz, with Trump heavy favourite to win all six primaries on the 19th and 26th. Sure, there has been a swing towards Cruz in various polls, but he remains way behind in all of them. One win out of six would represent success.

That doesn’t necessarily mean he will drift significantly in the betting during April. So long as Trump is set to fall short of 1237 delegates – the latest expert view on FiveThirtyEight predicts 1182 – Cruz will be popular in the betting. He would arrive at a contested convention with a massive advantage in terms of organisation and ability to accumulate delegates.

If it goes to a second ballot, I find it hard to see any other winner. Every delegate that Cruz and Kasich can deny Trump during April makes that second ballot likelier. In Betfair’s Brokered Convention market – regarding whether all candidates will fall short of a majority on the first ballot – ‘No’ is only rated around 44%.

Nevertheless, unless he implodes, Trump is much more likely to shorten in the betting throughout April, following those wins. At the end of the month, that conversation about 1237 will still be very much alive, and the narrative will have moved on from his terrible week in Wisconsin.

Between them, Cruz and Trump take out around 79% of the book. As it has for weeks, that seems way too low. John Kasich has no meaningful route to the nomination. Paul Ryan remains an exciting position to hold and plausible outsider, but a longshot nonetheless.

Think ahead to Cleveland. If Trump and Cruz are holding 80% of the delegates and the only two names on the ballot, having blocked changes to Rule 40, what will their combined odds amount to? I say 90% plus.

So if you believe Trump will be the nominee, or need a saver against Cruz, now is the perfect time to do it. If I hadn’t already covered at way too short a mark (1.38), I’d be doing so now on Trump at [2.0]. See below for my updated profit and loss on both the nominee and presidential market, and click here for my complete betting portfolio.

There are good reasons behind this decline. He’s just endured a terrible week, coming under fire over a whole range of comments, tweets and contradictory policy positions. Losing Wisconsin would be significant, and a massive boost for Ted Cruz.

However, every candidate has their correct price and I suspect that either one or both of the main candidates are now under-estimated. Combined, their odds equate to only 74% – implying there is a better than one in three chance of somebody other than the candidates who have won almost every state between them.

That is of course possible, and why I’m on Paul Ryan, but should it really be as high as 26%? If so, then perhaps Ryan is under-estimated at 7%. The third man, John Kasich, has an extremely difficult path and makes no appeal at 11%.

Note the combined percentages of all four is only 92%, implying an 8% likelihood of somebody else, barely on the current betting radar. The next shortest odds are Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney at 100.0 – neither of whom appeal at all. If stopping both Trump and Cruz would cause a revolt, picking either someone who had already lost this race, or the losing 2012 candidate, would probably cause anarchy.

This un-named other candidate surely has to be a genuinely fresh face to this race. Ryan is the most obvious, but there are others with potential. In expectation of more drama in this market over the next three months, I’ve had a speculative 2 unit bet on Nikki Haley at the maximum odds of 1000.0.

Haley is certainly a more realistic and electable alternative to Rubio, Romney or Jeb Bush. All it would take is a few rumours, or a few influential types to champion her cause, to get these odds to shorten up significantly. She’s popular with both the establishment and grassroots. Her endorsement was one of the most highly sought in this race. I don’t think she’ll be the candidate but at these odds in such an unpredictable scenario, she’s worth a punt!

Without something dramatic happening like Trump’s total implosion, though, it is hard to see how he drifts further than 2.06. After Wisconsin, the rest of this month offers a stack of winning opportunities. After New York and the North-East, the only Cruz path to the nomination will be via the convention. Plus if the polls were wrong tonight and Trump won Wisconsin, his odds would collapse.

Even if, as most now believe, we get a contested convention, Trump can still win on the first ballot by attracting enough unbound delegates to pass 1237. That probably depends how close he gets, but if he were only a few dozen short, it would be very realistic.

If truth be told, I cannot confidently price such a unique candidate in such a unique situation. Whereas Cruz is certain to stay in the race even if losing, because it suits his long-term political interest, Trump is totally unpredictable. I don’t trust Trump to not implode or quit, even if that seems highly unlikely. I don’t enjoy having short-priced bets that could lose without even offering the chance of a cash out.

Nevertheless, I certainly wouldn’t take him on at these odds. Better instead to have speculative trades on others – as has worked to good effect on Cruz and Ryan.

Betfair punters are fast losing faith in Donald Trump after a terrible week. From odds of 1.4 last weekend, equivalent to a 71% rating to win the Republican Nomination, the front-runner has drifted markedly on the exchange to 2.0 or 50%. In the meantime, principal rival Ted Cruz’s odds have more than halved from 8.4 to 3.9 (26%).

A multitude of reasons can be attributed but principally it is due to the growing expectation that Trump will fail to accumulate the 1237 delegates required to avoid a Contested Convention. That complex, potentially anarchic outcome is now rated 80% likely at odds of 1.25.

The next big race is Tuesday’s Wisconsin Primary, where 42 delegates will be allocated. From originally being considered a close contest, all the market and polling signals point towards a comfortable win for Cruz. The Texas Senator is now rated 87% likely to win at odds of 1.15.

Part of the explanation for Trump’s receding odds must lie in a series of mis-steps since the Wisconsin campaign began. First last Sunday, this car-crash interview with local talk radio host Charlie Sykes went viral.

First, a new position, taking 8 units profit out of my earlier position on Paul Ryan at 400.0. Originally, a 2 units stake yielded 800 units return. Now after laying 10 units at 22 last night, the Speaker earns me a minimum 8 units profit, with an extra 580 if he becomes the nominee.

I must stress, this is not my advice for anyone starting or thinking of amending a Ryan position from shorter odds. I have a classic gambler’s dilemma. His odds are shortening fast, and I suspect will go further if, as expected, the contested convention becomes likelier. But having got it right when backing him at 400, it would be unprofessional not to bank at least some profit.

Republican Nominee

Donald Trump +39 units

Ted Cruz +299 units

John Kasich -239 units

Paul Ryan +481 units

Others -99 units

Next President

Hillary Clinton +22 units

Bernie Sanders +69 units

Donald Trump -84 units

Ted Cruz +322 units

John Kasich +742 units

Others +22 units

First, to explain the John Kasich position. If he were to become the nominee, I’d lose 239 units. To cover it, I’d then look to lay some or all of that in the Next President market, for which he yields 742 units profit. Potentially that equation might mean a loss – if his odds were above [3.0] – but I reckon they’d be much less.

In any case, were the process to go far enough to give Kasich a chance, cover opportunities would likely arise on the others to improve the maths. For example by the time of a second ballot, I’d expect to have taken some profit out of Cruz.

As for his chances, my instinct is that it will be very hard to legitimise Kasich being the candidate having finished third – arguably less than a unity figure like Paul Ryan.

Certainly less than Cruz, whom it is perfectly realistic to imagine delegates swinging behind, and would be harder to dismiss as a tool of the establishment. Predicting how a brokered convention plays out will be complicated but for my money, if Trump is indeed to be stopped, Cruz becomes the clear favourite.

Two other eventualities could affect my ability to generate an overall profit. Donald Trump becoming President – a position I’m happy to be against and have no intention on covering.

Or somebody other than Trump, Cruz, Kasich or Ryan becoming the nominee after a brokered convention. Again this outcome can be covered against later if necessary, during what will be a lengthy, complicated process. Right now, the shortest odds about anybody besides those four is 100.

Obviously, the key to it all is my big positions on Cruz and Ryan. With Cruz looking strong in Wisconsin and Trump drifting in the market as his chance of winning a majority of delegates diminishes, his odds could tighten further in the short-term.

Ultimately, when we get to the convention Cruz and Trump will have three quarters of the delegates. If the general sentiment is that the party are able to block Trump on the first ballot, Cruz could even take over as favourite.

Again, this presents a dilemma. The target I had in mind earlier to lay back was around 5, and he’s just passed it. Laying right now seems premature, though, given Trump’s troubles in Wisconsin. Therefore, I’m at least waiting for that.

If one takes the view that the Republican Nominee can only be the candidate who earns the most delegates from the primaries, there is a rare opportunity to make money. Either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz will certainly emerge with the most delegates, yet their combined rating on the Betfair market is only 80%. Spread a £100 stake proportionally at respective odds of 1.49 and 8.0 now and, when one of that pair is confirmed at July’s convention, your return will be £125.

As the odds imply, however, it is not so simple. In fact, given that third candidate John Kasich only takes out 9% of the book at 11.5, Betfair punters are effectively saying there is a 11% likelihood of an alternative candidate who isn’t even in the race.

That extraordinary eventuality depends on whether either Trump or Cruz reach the target of 1237 ‘bound’ delegates by the conclusion of the primaries on June 7th. Without passing that threshold, the ‘winning’ candidate may lack the numbers to secure the nomination on the first ballot at July’s convention.

As one unique candidate continues to dominate headlines and divide opinion across the world, Betfair markets are delivering a clear verdict on how the Donald Trump saga will develop, and end. Trump is rated extremely likely to be the Republican Nominee but subsequently lose the General Election. Hillary Clinton is rated likelier than ever to be the Next President.

That said, it is also worth noting that Betfair punters are much more willing to take on the GOP favourite than bookmakers. Compared to a High Street best of 1.29 for the nomination, Trump is available to back here at 1.42.

At 1.43, equivalent to a 70% chance, Clinton is trading at her shortest odds yet for the main contest. In contrast, Trump remains stuck around at 5.3 (18%) despite seemingly getting closer to the GOP nomination.

As in everything, the gap between success and failure can be painfully thin in both betting and politics. The Missouri primaries demonstrated precisely why betting on politics can be so much fun. The combination of an updating televised scorecard alongside moving betting markets is highly addictive and there aren’t many markets where you have to wait 24 hours plus for recounts before a payout!

Once again, the Democrat race produced a massive upset. Bernie Sanders was backed into down to 1.06 (94%) before the late Clinton comeback. The Republican deficit was similarly marginal, with Donald Trump ruining my bet on Ted Cruz by just 0.2%.

Those few votes by which Cruz fell short could prove highly significant, and not just because every delegate is so valuable when your goal is to prevent Trump reaching 1237. For Cruz, it alters the narrative at a critical moment.

Without a win, Super Tuesday 3 feels like a bad night for Cruz, yet it was not without positives. He lost North Carolina by a much closer margin than generally predicted and won some delegates with second in Illinois. Marco Rubio’s exit will mean a sizeable transfer of votes that would have made the difference in a state like Missouri. Winning there would have strengthened his argument for a head-to-head race, and made it harder for Trump to dodge and therefore cancel the next Fox News debate.

Yet Trump emerged with all the momentum and looks stronger than ever. There is still a big question mark over Trump’s ability to reach 1237, but it seems almost impossible that he won’t win the most delegates now. With that in mind, I advised a big cover bet on our longstanding Cruz and Kasich positions immediately on Twitter. The 1.38 odds are still available, but I doubt they’ll last.

I’m confident that will ensure a small profit overall on the Republicans, given my positions on Cruz, John Kasich and Paul Ryan. Expect more changes soon – my instinct is that at 84% combined, Trump and Cruz are under-estimated and will shorten in the weeks ahead.

I believe the next two races on Tuesday will be pretty much decisive. If Cruz were to win both Arizona and Utah, especially if beating Trump 98/0 for delegates, it could reset the race. The Cruz argument that he is the only man who can be Trump and deserves a head-to-head fight would gain traction.

Alternatively, a Trump win in Arizona would mean the only real contest involved his reaching the 1237 target. The further ahead he goes, the likelier Republicans will coalesce around him for the sake of unity.

The key date is June 7th, when 303 delegates are available in five states, including 172 in California. I think to have a legitimate chance of stopping Trump at the convention would require him falling short by 100 or more. That involves Cruz and/or Kasich restricting him to no more than 1000 going into the final round of primaries.

The mathematical path to just achieving that limited goal is both complex and growing tougher by the day. In that pursuit, depriving Trump of Arizona’s 58 delegates is essential, especially with a favourable run in the North-East looming.

The latest poll for Arizona is inconclusive – showing Trump 31, Cruz 19, Kasich 10, leaving 40% undeclared. The general evidence is that relatively few of these undeclared swing towards Trump. Expect to see some headline endorsements for Cruz, though whether any can compete with Trump’s support from Sheriff Joe Arpaio is doubtful.

The early Arizona betting strongly favours Trump at 1.12 but I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see those odds lengthen, once polls recording closer to 100% of preferences are published. Cruz is similarly priced to win Utah.

On what feels like it will be the most important night yet of this election, we have ten races to predict and play. Some of the odds have changed in the meantime, but yesterday’s piece offers a brief overview.

On the one hand, the lack of useful data from Missouri is frustrating. On the other, it could offer an angle. On paper, this is definitely Ted Cruz’s chance of the night and, given his recent progress, particularly in nearby states, I make him the favourite. The market says otherwise.

Cruz has won in neighbouring Iowa, by a landslide in Kansas and pulled off an upset in Oklahoma. In Kentucky, he lost to Trump but closed the gap among later voters, following what I reckon was a turning point against Trump in the wider race. He lost Arkansas on the first Super Tuesday, but again only by a narrow margin.

I think the game has changed for Cruz since Mar 1st. Then, he was battling Marco Rubio for votes in the South and that split cost both of them dearly. Now, Rubio is apparently absent in Missouri.

The worry is that this is an open primary, which favours Trump. Independents also have the option of voting in a tight Democrat race so their decision is of paramount importance.

This is also a test of whether endless coverage of violence at Trump riots has damaged him. Conventional wisdom says it would, but nothing about the Trump candidacy has been conventional.

Elsewhere, I’m still weighing up whether to bet. Missouri is also interesting on the Democrat side, with Bernie Sanders the subject of a significant gamble. He’s now rated around 1.5 (67%).

In Ohio, I expect John Kasich to deliver at odds-on, with the help of anti-Trump voters and perhaps some Democrat switchers who recognise the importance of the occasion. This last point makes the Democrat race even harder to predict. Again Sanders has been gambled in from massive odds, but Clinton remains favourite.

But perhaps the most exciting state to watch is Illinois. I’m hearing reports of massive crowds at Cruz events and the polls point to him being the clear anti-Trump choice, with a large Rubio/Kasich vote there to squeeze. He is very interesting at 4.0 (25%) although again the fact it is an open primary favours Trump. I’ve also got little need to back Cruz in Illinois as a victory there would be fantastic for my wider positions.

Likewise, the Democrat race is deemed too close to call, as you can see from my 50/50 prediction below!

Florida and North Carolina look set for straightforward victories for the favourite. Here, for the record, are all my predictions.

Although there are many more important dates during the remaining three months of the primary schedule, two stand out as pivotal and ultimately decisive. The first is tomorrow and will go a long way towards defining the importance of the second.

If you take the view that Donald Trump’s bid for the nomination is unstoppable, June 7th will be no more than a coronation. In this analysis, he’ll dominate tomorrow’s five races, add further wins in Arizona, Wisconsin and then the North-East. By June 7th, when 303 delegates are in play, he’ll need a good night to get past the key 1237 threshold but even without passing it, Trump’s big lead would render any establishment plots to stop him as illegitimate and pointless.

If like me, you take the alternative view, then the key task is making sure somebody stays within range of Trump. Given his terrible unfavourable ratings, not to mention a sense that his anarchic campaign is growing out of control and that recent results suggest his ceiling with GOP voters has been reached, everything could change on June 7th.

The key point is, by that stage, the choice will either be head-to-head, or effectively head-to-head. It will be clear to anyone wanting to stop Trump precisely who they have to vote for. Whereas this week is the first time that has been the case.

It barely needs repeating that the opposition to Trump has been inept, anarchic and damaging. The co-ordinated attacks on the front-runner only really started at the Texas debate a fortnight ago. Tomorrow there is still the realistic prospect of Trump being able to win Illinois on 35%, while the other three carve each other up.

However there has been a change in tone and tactics. Marco Rubio’s campaign explicitly advised their supporters in Ohio to vote for John Kasich, because he is best placed to beat Trump. Rubio is apparently making little effort in Missouri – Ted Cruz’s key target. Both Rubio and Kasich failed to equivocally state they would support Trump as the nominee. Meanwhile, Cruz backers belatedly realised that fighting Florida was futile and counter-productive.

So there does appear to be a belated meeting of minds and, after Tuesday, those tactical operations will become clearer. My view, as the market implies, is that Rubio will lose his home state of Florida and drop out. If he were to pull off a shock, that would be a hammer blow to Trump and the whole race would then need re-assessing.

Rubio losing Florida makes Ohio a must-win for Kasich, to stop Trump pulling away. Here, I again think the market is probably right to support the state Governor. Illinois is getting close, with Cruz looking set to at least take a stack of delegates, if not win. If Cruz wins Missouri, that would keep him in touch with the front-runner.

In short, there’s enough there for the Never Trumpers to achieve their first target – stop Trump running away with it. If achieving that, the next step is to not only keep him below 1237, but well below the threshold.

Again this is not impossible, especially with that valuable final round of states. If Rubio exits, there will be well over 300 unbound delegates, free to jump behind an alternative at the convention, if necessary.

Imagine a scenario where, going into June 7th, the tallies were something like Trump 875 Cruz 625, Kasich 350. It would now be mathematically impossible for Trump to reach 1237 and if he could be kept below 1000, this would be a strong argument for a contested convention, in order to find a more legitimate leader.

Of the states on June 7th, California alone has 172 delegates, making it a potentially decisive battle. New Jersey has 51, South Dakota 29, Montana 27 and New Mexico 24.

What we need is polls for these states and, more importantly, head-to-head with Trump polls in these and the earlier remaining states. From the little evidence seen so far, Trump struggles against anyone head-to-head.

If things go well for him this week and he stays within touch of the leader, Cruz could be the only realistic anti-Trump option left.

That’s precisely why I’ve pressed up my bets on Cruz for both nomination and presidency in the last week, and am seriously tempted to add more. Wyoming may not be a big player, but the scale of Saturday’s victory there – following similar routs in Idaho and Kansas – suggest he has some momentum. So do improving poll numbers in Illinois.

Unless Trump pretty much sweeps the board this week, I can’t see how Cruz’s odds get much longer in the short-term, while he remains in clear second place and winning plenty of races.

If this sequence of events is accurate, the so-called establishment will have to make a decision. While they may hate Cruz and his obstructionism in Washington, my bet is they’ll prefer him to Trump. Both will struggle to win in November, but whereas Cruz won’t split or destroy the party, Trump probably would. Better to have a candidate that you don’t always agree with, than one whose campaign is defined by daily protests, riots and scandal.

This year’s US Election cycle differs from the historical norm in so many ways, and not just due to unique candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

Normally by mid-March, the parties would be in the process of coalescing around an overwhelmingly likely candidate. This time, with protest and violence at GOP front-runner Trump rallies dominating the daily headlines, consensus seems a thing of the past.

While the Republicans tear themselves apart, Democrat voters also remain reluctant to simply rubber-stamp what the market considers a virtually inevitable Hillary Clinton candidacy. After Sanders pulled off an enormous 33 to 1 upset in Michigan, nobody can be quite sure about the path ahead.

Consequently while the term ‘Super Tuesday’ normally applies to one day in the cycle, it is an apt description for the third straight week. Leaving aside the small GOP caucus in the Northern Mariana Islands, five states go the polls. All are significant, and all are interesting betting heats.

Always a crucial General Election swing state, Florida’s role in this year’s GOP primary process is also pivotal with 99 winner-takes-all delegates up for grabs. Having dominated the polls for months, Trump is overwhelming favourite, rated 89% likely at odds of 1.12, to take a big step towards the nomination.

After months of watching the GOP civil war unfold live at the TV debates, the latest one from Miami came as something of a culture shock.

On what could plausibly be the last one, or at least the last involving more than two candidates, everyone was civil and policy-focused. There was no obvious winner or loser, which must be good news for the front-runner.

Coupled with the endorsement of Ben Carson, this was undoubtably a good night for Donald Trump, who remains overwhelming 1.43 (70%) favourite for the nomination. I suspect those odds will get even shorter in the next few days.

However that doesn’t mean hostilities have ceased away from the debate stage. Far from it. There is a battle royale going on ahead of next Tuesday’s series of pivotal primaries, that will determine the fate of at least two of the four remaining candidacies.

Before getting to them, though, a reminder of the bets announced on Twitter earlier this week.

New bet: Laid (opposed) another 10 units of Donald Trump @ 5.4 for next president (doubling weekend position) https://t.co/a8kpZKT2Ov

First, I’ve added to my weekend lay of Trump for the Presidency. The latest polls confirm what I’ve said throughout – if Trump is the nominee, he will be thrashed by Hillary Clinton in November. Laying in this market, rather than the nomination, gives me two chances to get him beaten.

Secondly, I’ve pressed up on Ted Cruz for both nomination and presidency – although note this is more of a strategic trade than a tip to win either. Prior to these bets my position on Cruz was 10 units profit if he doesn’t become the nominee, 260 units if he does. Now my total risk on him is 20 units, to yield 388 profit if becomes the nominee, plus a further 300 if he becomes president. The plan, as I’ll explain shortly, is to lay that all back in the weeks ahead.

So where next? In my view, Trump will win Florida and therefore all 99 delegates up for grabs in that state. That will knock out Marco Rubio.

Ohio, alternatively, is much harder to call. The polls there are contradictory, and it looks very close between Trump and John Kasich.

Notably, Cruz appears to be making very little effort in those states – belatedly recognising he can only hurt Trump’s rival, and therefore himself. Instead, he’ll focus efforts on Missouri’s winner-takes-all contest and the proportional races in North Carolina and Illinois.

I strongly suspect the outcome on Tuesday will be Trump getting the most delegates, with Cruz second, thus strengthening the idea of this becoming a two-man race. Kasich must win Ohio to stay in and alter that narrative.

It is in this scenario that I plan to lay Cruz back. My hope is that he will shorten in the market to at least 5, offering the chance of a sizeable cash out profit.

That isn’t to say he can’t win. The two-man race scenario has been hypothetical to date. Most polls testing it suggest Cruz wins such a contest. However I fear that the others have stayed in too long to prevent Trump having the most delegates, so any Cruz route to victory would have to be via a contested convention.

We’ve just had four more results in the Republican Nomination process, with two wins apiece for Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. I’ve been tweeting all day about it and will doubtless be writing and talking more as the week goes on. We have a pivotal primary to come on Tuesday, in Michigan.

Coming off the back of such a long day is perhaps not the optimum time to be striking new bets, but I feel it must be done now, because the odds are likelier to move tomorrow when people properly weigh up these results.

As I argued earlier in the week, Trump’s Super Tuesday results, though reported as sweeping the board, were actually underwhelming. Then followed another vicious TV debate in Michigan, that in my view damaged both Trump and Marco Rubio – whose campaign looks almost dead after a terrible day.

Now we have these four results. Resounding victories for Ted Cruz in Kansas and Maine. The first was predictable, but by a much bigger margin than anybody anticipated. The second far less predictable, coming in a state where Cruz wasn’t generally regarded to be competitive and the Governor had endorsed Trump.

Trump hit back with wins in Louisiana and Kentucky, but the margin and nature of the victories was unconvincing. Both were closer than expected, and notably Trump appears to have relied upon early voters. There seems to be genuine evidence of a late swing against him, towards Cruz.

So the new narrative is a two-horse race, but that could change on Tuesday. The latest Michigan poll puts John Kasich 2% ahead of Trump – suggesting a big turnaround. As I wrote yesterday, Kasich is now well poised for the second half of the race, and the Governor of neighbouring Ohio is typically working hard to secure a key victory in the state. Odds of 1.28 look well worth taking on.

As for the more risky lay, for the presidency, I was in two minds. On the one hand, getting Trump beaten is essential to my book, especially now Cruz is making such progress. Likewise, Kasich is a big position.

In due course, I hope to take some more profit out of Cruz and if he makes progress, Kasich too. But right now I’d much rather be a backer of either. I am highly tempted to lay Trump for the nomination at odds-on, but part of me says adding extra risk to a good position would be unprofessional. Of course Trump could still be the nominee, regardless of my negativity about his chance.

However, whilst I am not prepared to dismiss Trump for the nomination, the presidency seems miles off and I think his odds will lengthen. Check out these latest nationwide unfavourables – minus 33%. I reckon Hillary Clinton, (she with the hardly encouraging -12% favorability), is cheering his bid all the way, regarding Trump as her easiest potential opponent. Critically in both cases, these are candidates whom voters have longstanding, largely fixed, opinions about.

Trump was a 5.1 chance this morning, and the picture looks worse now. If he does win the nomination, I can cover if desired. I actually think if Trump is the nominee, we’ll see Michael Bloomberg enter and siphon off moderate, free trade Republicans.

Therefore, it is perhaps no surprise to see short-odds money-buyers a little more reluctant to wade in ahead of tonight’s four Republican contests. Donald Trump is favourite in three of them, but at nothing like those ultra-short levels seen on Super Tuesday. That also reflects a cooling in the front-runners’ wider market ratings over the past week, as attacks on his character, business record and policies have amplified.

In two days since Mitt Romney launched an all-out assault on Trump, he has drifted from 1.3 to 1.54 in the Republican Nominee market, and 3.9 to 5.1 for Next President. That equates to a decline in probability from 77% to 65%, and 26% to 20% respectively.

Since the outset of the anarchic cage fight otherwise known as the Republican Party primary process, John Kasich has been dismissed by betting markets as a rank outsider. That is beginning to change. After the latest debate in Michigan, the Ohio Governor is down to his lowest odds yet at 20.0 for the nomination, 40.0 for the presidency.

I already have three positions on Kasich. First, a bet for the presidency at 240.0. Then I covered that three unit stake, by laying him at 50 for the nomination. (I’ll explain the logic behind that shortly). Third, as announced on Twitter earlier this week, I’ve laid (opposed) him in the Republican VP market.

In the last case, I think the odds represent terrible value. I simply cannot see how, after repeatedly stressing practical policies and a humane approach to illegal immigration, he could be Donald Trump’s running mate. Likewise, he is probably too moderate for an ultra-Conservative like Ted Cruz. That leaves the floundering Marco Rubio as his only route to the VP job.

Plus, Kasich has repeatedly said that he doesn’t want it. That he is not a number two and would rather remain the Governor of Ohio. Yes, I know politicians go back on their word, but I believe him and, more to the point, that lot simply doesn’t add up to a 25% chance – the mark at which I’ve laid him.

The presidency, however, is another matter. With every day that this race becomes more bitter and the standoff between establishment and Trump escalates, Kasich’s refusal to trade insults and abandon his policy based approach looks more convincing.

I get the impression that a substantial portion of GOP members want unity. They want to win the election. It was telling that Frank Luntz’s focus group preferred Kasich last night, despite him getting the least air time.

But how could a path emerge, given his failure to thus far win a state or win many delegates? Well, it absolutely must involve winning Ohio on the 15th March. I believe he will, and so does the early market. I also believe he could be competitive in Michigan next week. The early polls suggest otherwise, but we saw on Super Tuesday how quickly they change. He was rated fourth in Vermont, yet only ended up losing by 2% to Trump.

Plus, Rubio could well fail to win Florida and be effectively finished in a fortnight. All that establishment money would likely go then to Kasich. And suddenly, his moderate stance will find a lot more favorable territory in later voting, delegate-rich states like New York, New Jersey and California. Pennsylvania on April 26th is another prime Kasich target.

As voters and commentators take a closer look at Kasich, they will begin to realise he is the GOP’s strongest General Election candidate. By some way. I was saying this back in January, and recent polls have confirmed it.

Now, maybe it will not be enough to win a majority of delegates, but he certainly has the potential to become competitive if Trump and Cruz continue to split the delegate count.

The route to 1237 is not clear for anybody. Cue the ever likelier event of a brokered convention. In that scenario, the only realistic option may be to look for a unity candidate. That is the logic behind my long-odds bet on Paul Ryan and of the four men left in the race, Kasich is the only one who could truly fill that role.

Finally, I should clarify the complex strategy laid out in my election bets portfolio. If Kasich becomes the nominee, I’ll lose 147 units from laying 3 units at 50. However I will also have a 3 unit bet at 240 on him becoming president, which will be worth at least 300 to cash out. I actually think it would be worth a lot more, and that Hillary Clinton’s current rating beyond 60% would switch over to Kasich in due course. In that scenario, the cash out would be more than 400 units.

Yesterday I was an in-studio guest on “Morning Affair POTUS” at one of my favourite radio stations, Sirius XM, interviewed by Tim Farley.

This was a particularly enjoyable interview, giving me the chance to explain my analysis of Super Tuesday. Whereas the immediate consensus was that Trump had swept the board, I argued that his numbers actually suggested a significant dip over the past week, and that we were likely headed for a brokered convention.

In the hours afterwards, Trump’s odds drifted markedly – down from 77% to 64% for the nomination – after Mitt Romney laid out a comprehensive attack on his party’s front-runner in a keynote speech.

The big stories on election betting markets this week have been (a) a series of massive upsets on Super Tuesday and (b) the ongoing uncertainty about just how likely Donald Trump is to be the Republican Nominee.

As the Super Tuesday results came in, virtually the entire media bought into the same, simplistic narrative. That Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had swept all before them. In Clinton’s case, that ignored Bernie Sanders winning four races, although the Democrat race does remain very one-sided. Clinton is virtually unbackable at 1.08 – and only meaningfully opposable if you buy the theory that she will be indicted over her e-mails. I don’t.

The GOP race, alternatively, remains an incredibly interesting betting heat. In the immediate aftermath of Super Tuesday, as people took headline results at face value, Trump hit his shortest odds yet at 1.25. However, as I tweeted repeatedly on the night, this was a misread of what actually happened.

Look a little deeper and the numbers suggest Trump underperformed, markedly in some states. In Oklahoma, the RCP polling average had him 11% up. He lost by 6% to Cruz. In Virginia and Vermont, he was rated 15% up, yet only won by 3 and 2% respectively. There was virtually no polling in Alaska or Minnesota, but defeats there were massive betting upsets.

On the other side of the ledger, the massive win in Massachusetts was on a similar, overwhelming scale to previous victories in Nevada, South Carolina and New Hampshire. If those places are indicative of the GOP contest, Trump will indeed be the nominee.

I have a suspicion, though, that the wider underperformance indicates a slow cracking of Trump’s invincibility. The dynamics of this race only changed last Thursday – too late to meaningfully affect Super Tuesday – at the CNN debate in Texas. After months of a counterproductive cage fight, where Trump’s rivals attacked each other in a bizarre race for position, rather than the front-runner, the new narrative is Trump versus the rest.

One big difference is the new friendly, collaborative relationship between Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. In Texas, they went after him throughout, on a lifetime of inconsistent policy positions, his failure to public tax returns, electability, failed business projects, Trump University, donations to the Clinton foundation.

Whereas Rubio had previously allied with Trump in trying to destroy Cruz in South Carolina, now he switched sides and went after Trump. Their war has famously continued since, in a wierd exchange of personal abuse.

Cruz too now seemed like Rubio’s ally. Immediately afterwards, he told interviewers that ‘Marco is my friend. Not my enemy’. He’s since added that “Marco would make a much better President than Trump.” The pair even shared what seemed like a pre-planned joke at Trump’s expense in last night’s Fox Debate.

Perhaps this explains why Trump performed way below polling expectations on Tuesday. This is something I’ve been arguing in interviews all week.

The market finally woke up to this changing narrative yesterday, as Trump’s nominee rating fell from 77 to 64%. While I would love to believe it was due to punters listening to me, the reason was almost certainly Mitt Romney’s full-throttle attack on Trump yesterday.

Romney and Rubio very much represent the party establishment, and their words are going to be very hard to backtrack on if Trump becomes the nominee. In my view, it all points towards Trump having a very difficult time negotiating a brokered convention should he fail to win 50% of the delegates.

As Melissa Caen explains here, the party retains the power to do pretty much whatever it wants to retain control at the convention. Ultimately, this could be great news for my dream bet on Paul Ryan at 399-1. (I should add that, as explained in a recent Politico article, I’ve doubled up on this bet. However due to the lack of liquidity on these rank outsiders, I didn’t bother listing it on Twitter at the time, because nobody else would have got anything like these odds afterwards).

In a slightly exciting development, The Hill reports a SuperPac forming, trying to convince potential unity figure Ryan to run. We can dream!

However it also remains a strong possibility that such anti-Trump machinations work in his favour – reinforcing the perception that he is the only true outsider, and therefore what the base wants. The forthcoming primaries in Michigan, Ohio and Florida are absolutely pivotal and Trump could win all three, effectively sewing the race up in the process.

Another scenario – again ideal for our betting plan – is that the other two remaining candidates benefit most. Ted Cruz is emerging as the main threat to Trump. If Rubio fails to win Florida, he could theoretically endorse Cruz. In a telling comment, Lindsay Graham – who recently joked about murdering Cruz – said that the party may have to unite behind him to stop Trump.

From looking all but finished at around 200.0 for the presidency and 75.0 for the nomination, Cruz is rising again at 40.0 and 12.0 respectively after his trio of Super Tuesday wins. I felt he thrived at last night’s Michigan debate too, when Trump’s record came under brutal attack from all sides once again. Cruz also has some promising upcoming targets, too.

Don’t rule out John Kasich either. He has steadfastly refused to get involved in the abuse and name-calling, focusing instead on policy. He could be rewarded as the party tires of all the bickering, and has definite chances in Michigan and then his home state of Ohio. Kasich too is shortening in the betting, to 20.0 and 44.0 respectively. As argued back in January on the Steve Hexom Show, Kasich is the Republican’s most electable option.

Last week I was privileged to be interviewed in-depth for Nevada Public Radio (KNPR).

We discussed how and why the 2016 US Election would be the biggest political betting event of all-time and my long-range analysis of the race. I also got to explain why I placed a $10,000 bet on Barack Obama two years before his successful re-election campaign four years ago!

I’ve long lost count of the number of Republican debates we’ve seen in this extraordinary cycle. They have all been entertaining – in ways never seen before in politics, closer to a celebrity cage fight than measured debate – and in my view, catastrophic for both the image and electoral prospects of the party. Tonight’s five-man affair in Texas may finally produce a decisive result.

In just five days, 14 states will vote on Super Tuesday. Unless something dramatic happens very soon, Donald Trump will emerge with a commanding delegate lead. He has won the last three contests by a massive margin and Tuesday’s one-sided Nevada result sent an ominous signal to the rest. Trump won by 22% and earned more votes than the entire GOP field in the same contest four years ago.

The market response was similarly overwhelming. From being rated around 53% going into the caucuses, Trump is now rated a 70% chance at odds of 1.43 for the nomination. At 4.1 (24%), he is also at his lowest mark yet for the presidency. The only other Republican below [100.0] for the presidency is 8.2 chance Marco Rubio.

Ever since he declared, most pundits have been sceptical about Trump’s plausibility as a candidate. He has vastly more opponents within his own party than any candidate ever, and has the worst nationwide favourability numbers of any candidate. Yet, irrespective of what happens in November when the wider public are involved, Trump has a vast, loyal base among GOP primary voters. Unless the rest unite around a single candidate, he is unbeatable.

That does not appear very likely. Marco Rubio has emerged as clearly the best placed to unite the rest, but even in one of his target states, the Florida Senator failed to do so. Whereas he finished 22% behind Trump in Nevada, Rubio only beat the crisis-ridden Ted Cruz by 3%.

He needs Cruz, John Kasich and Ben Carson to all quit the race very soon. Yet there’s no reason why that should happen. Cruz may earn more delegates than Rubio on Super Tuesday, and remains favourite to win his home state of Texas.

Furthermore, there is nothing in Cruz’s history or profile to suggest he’ll quit. There is no love lost between him and Rubio and, at the relatively young age of 44, has an interest to playing the long game. To secure as many delegates and leverage as possible, establishing himself as the leader of pure, ‘movement Conservatives’ ahead of future battles.

So long as Cruz is in the race, he’ll consistently get at least 15% and prevent that anti-Trump coalition emerging. In any case, his supporters are by no means certain to favour Rubio over Trump. Kasich has no interest in quitting yet either. As the Governor of Ohio, which votes on March 15, he may win a state before Rubio. One week earlier, Michigan is not completely out of range.

With no anti-Trump coalition emerging in the immediate future, his opponents are reliant on a dramatic turn of events. A slip, a scandal or humiliating, gamechanging moment. Having spent the last six months killing each other rather than the race leader, perhaps this will be the first night where any of them land a meaningful blow on Trump.

Unlikely as that seems, they were given a talking point to exploit by the losing Republican candidate from 2012. Mitt Romney’s campaign was damaged by the slow-drip release of his tax returns.

Romney suggested last night that there might be something embarrassing in Trump’s returns – that he either wasn’t worth as much as claimed, or hasn’t given to veterans and charities on the scale he’s claimed. Soon we’ll know if this offers a glimmer of hope for his rivals, a long-term gift for the Democrats, or just another false dawn for the majority of Americans who do not want Trump anywhere near the White House.

On this huge day in the US election cycle, I make absolutely no apology for keeping stakes small and literally hedging my bets. Anything less would be irresponsible, given the treacherous difficulty in predicting this New Hampshire Primary. The Republican side at least – where the interesting betting lies. I’m quite sure that the market is correct to make Bernie Sanders a 97% chance – the effects of which I’ll deal with shortly.

We have one bet on the Republican race, which I’ve all but given up on already. From carrying great momentum away from Iowa, Marco Rubio may have blown everything in one debate. The problem with being a candidate whose reputation was built in the media – driven by image, fluency and therefore perceived electability – is that it can all disintegrate so quickly. What the media creates, the media can destroy.

In being so brutally, verbally mauled by Chris Christie, the Rubio brand became everything his detractors claimed. A lightweight, inexperienced, opportunistic career politician who repeats the same memorised lines on a loop. See this epic series of tweets from the wise Republican commentator David Frum.

Rubio can of course come back, but it is too late for New Hampshire and our four unit bet, and he is a bit damaged ahead of the longer race. My feeling is the likeliest threat to Donald Trump is John Kasich, for whom second or better would take his challenge up several gears and block a path for Rubio to sew up the establishment vote. A bunched finish would also put paid to Jeb Bush quitting any time soon – something Rubio needs urgently.

Certainly in the cases of Cruz and Rubio, laying back earlier has paid dividends as both have drifted since. In both cases, my analysis was hit by a sudden, unexpected development. Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Donald Trump freaked me, putting what seemed an easy win Iowa in jeopardy. When his odds drifted right out before eventually upsetting the odds there, at least I was covered .

Rubio’s disaster was also unforeseen, but matters not because we’ve covered the stake. Likewise. If Kasich bombs tonight and quits the race, there will be no damage done.

The great thing is that we are now free to go back in again, which is what I’m doing on Cruz. I am much more confident now about him than when laying at 6.0, yet he’s actually a bigger price at 8.0.

In my view, Cruz is the ultimate benficiary of Rubio’s woes. His biggest long-term rival is damaged, and the establishment lane continue to carve each other up. Cruz has no expectations in New Hampshire, yet it isn’t beyond the realms of possibility that he beats the establishment quartet.

I remain a huge sceptic of Donald Trump and am confident that if it comes down to the pair of them, Cruz wins. Indeed I believe Trump will struggle to win any 2 or 3 man races once the field winnows.

So I’ve just gone in again on Cruz at 8.0. I feel certain these odds will be shorter further down the track, and he’s now a massive winner for the book, securing nearly 400 units profit – leaving plenty to cash in later, if his odds indeed shorten.

The same plan applies to the Democrat race. Having taken a small 6 unit loss on Clinton, we are reliant on the 195 unit risk-free position on Sanders becoming president. That was secured by laying our stake back at 11, but he’s now drifted to 14, for reasons that totally escape me.

Sanders has momentum after a good Iowa result, and the money to stay in this race. I don’t believe he’ll win the nomination but odds of 5.5 are about right. If so, as before, his odds for the presidency are too big, as explained when having the initial bet. Therefore, as advised on Twitter yesterday, I’ve gone in again.

New bet: 10 units @BernieSanders for Next President @ 14. Adding to existing risk-free bet to win 195u. Must shorten post #NHPrimary win.

Yet again, opinion polls have been proved spectacularly wrong in a major political betting event. Yet again, odds-on backers were taught a lesson about trying to buy money in US primary elections.

Monday’s Iowa Caucuses turned the Republican Nomination race on it’s head and, after a photo-finish, set the Democrat race up for a fascinating duel.

After trading odds-on for the nomination, a defeated Donald Trump has ceded favouritism to Marco Rubio, who at odds of 1.73 is now rated 57% likely to be the GOP candidate in November’s General Election. That despite only finishing third to Ted Cruz, who is still surprisingly weak at 7.0 (14%).

We’re already on Ted Cruz to be the Republican nominee. Backing Marco Rubio now is the perfect cover.

As promised when advising this bet on Twitter yet, some more detailed reasoning. Even after banking a profit from my initial position on Cruz, he could net a further 250 units profit. It makes perfect sense to cover on the man I believe will be his main rival.

New bet: Backed @marcorubio to be Next President 25 units @ 8.4: Will do well enough in #iacaucus to progress & electable. Will blog tmro

Thanks to the market surge for Donald Trump, Rubio is at his biggest odds for some time. Yet as explained in my final verdict on the Iowa Caucus, Trump’s favorability numbers are terrible, way behind both Cruz and Rubio. As I argued in my wide-ranging analysis for Politico last year, favorability is the key number to watch, ahead of the inevitable winnowing of the GOP field.

It seems certain that Rubio will be in the thick of that battle, and he will be extremely well-financed. Among that final group, he would be a much stronger General Election candidate than Trump, and probably than Cruz. This must matter.

There’s no question that, in organisational terms, Rubio is late to the party. He’s been criticised for a lack of visibility in the early swing states, compared to other rivals on the mainstream wing of the GOP.

His event in Ames yesterday was low-key compared to Cruz. The crowd mostly arrived late and, from my conversations, included virtually no committed supporters. This was a crowd of undecideds, checking out a frontline candidate, probably for the first time.

They greeted Rubio enthusiastically, but not fervently. Yet this crowd loved everything he had to say, just as focus groups have after TV debates. I went away certain that he had won new converts and sealed the deal with many undecideds.

It is probably too late to win Iowa, but he is booked for clear third place at least. That will generate momentum going to New Hampshire and I expect some current Jeb Bush supporters to switch. Maybe Chris Christie and John Kasich too.

Finally, why back him for the Presidency rather than nomination? Simply the odds. 8.4 in the former market compared to 3.2 in the latter implies Rubio would be more than 2.5 in a head-to-head with a Democrat. As arguably the most electable GOP candidate that strikes me as much too big.

He has defied all expert opinion and conventional wisdom since the beginning of this race six months ago. One by one, rivals that challenged him have been abused and ended up worse for wear. He has the media dancing to his tune and gives the impression that he could be rewriting the rules of political campaigning. Even betting markets have, finally, jumped aboard his bandwagon. Nevertheless, I still cannot buy into Donald Trump and believe now is the perfect time to take him on.

The final, much-respected Des Moines Register poll records him 5% ahead of Ted Cruz for Monday’s Iowa Caucus. Cruz, 10% up in the same poll last month and rated an 80% chance in the betting, has slipped badly. Weeks of relentless character assassination from Trump and the GOP establishment have taken their toll. Yet look deeper into the numbers, then consider the nature of caucus voting, and these numbers are not great for Trump either.

First, remember that caucuses are not the same as the standard, straightforward secret ballot that most of us are used to. This is a time-consuming, complex process that may involve having to argue the case for your vote in front of friends and neighbours. Typically for this time of year, there is a snowstorm forecast for either Monday night or Tuesday. No wonder turnout is expected to be well below 20%.

That is bound to favour the most organised, committed activists and usually blindsides the polls. On that score, there is near universal consensus that Cruz is best equipped. I saw some of it first hand yesterday at his event in Ames. His supporters are passionate, organised and, critically, registered. Twice as many households acknowledge contact with the Cruz campaign compared to Trump.

In contrast, the big question mark hanging over Trump is that so much of his support comes from groups less likely to turnout or be registered Republicans. Again, speaking to political activists and insiders across the country, there is near universal doubt over Trump’s ability to convert his poll share into votes.

That may not matter in some of the open primaries, with easier registration and secret ballots, where Trump currently holds huge poll leads. In Iowa though, 5% looks extremely fragile.

Even more so when considering the numbers in depth. More than one in three poll respondents didn’t declare support any of the top-three, (also including Marco Rubio). 9% were still undecided. Expect plenty of these to switch on Monday to somebody with a chance of winning. Even if they all turn out, Trump’s 28% may not be enough to win, and he badly trails Cruz and Rubio in terms of second choices. Here Rubio gets 20%, Cruz 17%, Trump just 7%. In a head-to-head, which is how this is being framed and reported, Cruz wins 53-35.

Furthermore, Trump remains toxic with a substantial portion of the GOP base. 47% view him unfavourably, meaning a net rating of just +3, compared to +49 and +37 for Rubio and Cruz. It bodes ill for Monday and terribly for the wider race, when the field is whittled down to a handful in a few weeks.

This is precisely why I recommended backing Marco Rubio to be Next President last night. I will blog shortly in depth about this.

New bet: Backed @marcorubio to be Next President 25 units @ 8.4: Will do well enough in #iacaucus to progress & electable. Will blog tmro

Eventually, I believe this will realistically boil down to a three runner race between Trump, Cruz and Rubio. We are already on Cruz for the nomination, so it must make sense to get Rubio on side. It will be an upset were he to win Iowa, but he is booked for third and will at least come away with momentum.

Rather than backing Cruz in Iowa, it makes better sense to just lay Trump at 1.6 (63%), therefore keeping the late Rubio run onside. Just to clarify, I already advised a lay of Trump at these odds on Twitter earlier in the week, but cashed out for a tiny profit after Cruz’s poor debate night. I’ve since gone back in at the shorter odds.

The Democrat race, for which Hillary Clinton is rated 3% ahead, makes less appeal from a betting perspective. I think she’ll win, on the same grounds that Bernie Sanders’ supporters are less likely to be registered. However, 9% remain undecided and supporters of third-placed Martin O’Malley tend to break more towards Sanders. However the market rating of 70% for Clinton looks only fair and certainly not a betting proposition. Especially given the history of upsets in these races.

After another bad week for one-time runaway Iowa Caucus favourite Ted Cruz, the betting flip-flop is complete. Donald Trump is now down to 1.6, rated a 63% chance to win the opening stage of the Republican primary process. In the Democrat race, Hillary Clinton is forecast to withstand the Bernie Sanders surge at odds of 1.4 (71%). But can we trust the market signals?

If this were a contest to run a country, state or even a city, previous evidence would overwhelmingly say “Yes”. In every major UK or US election since the advent of Betfair in 2001, the favourite 100 days out in the main market – Next President or Winning Party, for example – has gone on to win.

In fact, these early primaries have proven an absolute nightmare for favourite backers in the last two US election cycles, producing big upsets and some of the most exciting in-running events in the history of political betting.

As the global betting industry evolves, ever more diverse markets are coming on stream, involving subject matters worlds apart from the racetrack, roulette wheel or football stadium. To some, politics is a matter of life or death. To others, its a golden opportunity to make money from predicting elections, leadership contests or even which currency a country will use.

Advocates will tell you this kind of real-world betting is easier to win at than sports, because the luck element is almost entirely removed. Even the media are getting in on the act, with highbrow newspapers presenting betting odds as an alternative to opinion polls, based on a remarkable recent record.

In this guest piece for www.casino.org, I run through some historical highlights of this fast growing market

Time to take the risk out of GOP positions and guarantee a small profit on Cruz

In a long election with many twists and turns – plenty of which have already occured before the primaries have even started – the key to making money is timing. As candidates rise and fall, we must try to buy and sell their ratings at the opportune moment – trading their odds like a stock portfolio.

That is why, given the impact of Sarah Palin’s dramatic, headline-grabbing endorsement of Donald Trump, this is a prudent moment to be cashing out *some* of our substantial position on Ted Cruz for the Republican Nomination. I actually tweeted this cover position immediately after her speech.

The two bets placed earlier yield a return of 400 units for an outlay of just 15 units. So by laying (or selling back) 25 units at odds of 6, we are guaranteed ten units profit on the bet, while reducing the potential return to 250 units. See the equation below.

Backed Ted Cruz 5u @ 30 – returns 150

Backed Ted Cruz 10u @ 25 – returns 250

Laid Ted Cruz 25u @ 6 – pays out 150

If Cruz is the nominee, we make 260 profit

If Cruz isn’t the nominee, we make 10 profit

This does not mean I’ve lost faith in the bet. It is a recognition that an unpredictable variable has just entered the equation. Tomorrow, I’ll be writing a new piece weighing the Palin effect. Given the uncertainty – I am nowhere near as confident about my long-range prediction, that Cruz will win Iowa or the early Southern states now – it would be unprofessional to carry risk and take no profit out of an excellent position.